From: David Kastrup <dak@gnu•org>
To: Thomas Rast <tr@thomasrast•ch>
Cc: git@vger•kernel.org
Subject: Re: Profiling support?
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2014 18:05:42 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87lhxbvvh5.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87mwhr2e1w.fsf@thomasrast.ch> (Thomas Rast's message of "Sun, 16 Feb 2014 17:54:51 +0100")
Thomas Rast <tr@thomasrast•ch> writes:
> David Kastrup <dak@gnu•org> writes:
>
>> Thomas Rast <tr@thomasrast•ch> writes:
>>
>>> David Kastrup <dak@gnu•org> writes:
>>>
>>>> Looking in the Makefile, I just find support for coverage reports using
>>>> gcov. Whatever is there with "profile" in it seems to be for
>>>> profile-based compilation rather than using gprof.
>>> [...]
>>>> Is there a reason there are no prewired recipes or advice for using
>>>> gprof on git? Is there a way to get the work done, namely seeing the
>>>> actual distribution of call times (rather than iterations) using gcov so
>>>> that this is not necessary?
>>>
>>> No reason I'm aware of, other than that nobody ever wrote it.
>>
>> A solid testing/benchmarking framework would quite seem like a useful
>> GSoC project as it would make it easy for casual programmers to dip
>> their feet into their personal bottlenecks, and it would make it much
>> easier to find worthwhile hotspots for future projects taking the
>> challenge of speeding up core and/or specific operations.
>>
>>> Note that I wouldn't exactly be surprised if the gcov targets had
>>> bitrotted without anyone noticing. I haven't heard of any heavy users.
>>> I originally wrote them to do some basic test coverage analysis, but
>>> that's about it.
>>
>> I've managed to make use of the outer sandwich layers: the prepare and
>> the evaluate stuff. I ran my own tests for benchmarking though.
>
> Umm, are we even discussing the same thing here?
Maybe not.
> Are you saying you ran profiling-instrumented code under the t/perf/
> support code?
No. I used the toplevel Makefile targets coverage-clean,
coverage-compile and, after running my own problematic test cases,
coverage-report. I did not use the coverage-test target, nor did I
venture into t/perf/ in any other way.
--
David Kastrup
prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-02-16 17:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-02-11 11:17 Profiling support? David Kastrup
2014-02-11 13:18 ` Duy Nguyen
2014-02-11 14:41 ` David Kastrup
2014-02-11 15:14 ` John Keeping
2014-02-11 15:19 ` David Kastrup
2014-02-11 20:53 ` David Kastrup
2014-02-16 15:44 ` Thomas Rast
2014-02-16 15:59 ` David Kastrup
2014-02-16 16:54 ` Thomas Rast
2014-02-16 17:05 ` David Kastrup [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=87lhxbvvh5.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org \
--to=dak@gnu$(echo .)org \
--cc=git@vger$(echo .)kernel.org \
--cc=tr@thomasrast$(echo .)ch \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox