davide added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D45547#1066348, @jingham wrote:
> Timers seemed like they would be really useful for collection of data about > operations in lldb, but for most things I think they end up being hard to use > because actual wall-clock time is so variable from run to run, and especially > for disk and inter-process heavy operations, which lldb tends to be. I'm not > sure we should give up on timers, sometimes you want to know "how many times > did I do X" and other times "how long did X take" and the Timers are more > useful for this than just a sample or wall-clock times because you can find > out how long it took "in the Dwarf parser", etc. > > But in many cases our performance is more driven by unnecessary lookups, and > that sort of error. For that sort of error it will be much more useful to > say "given program A and expression B, how many DWARF DIE lookups did I do" > than "how long did I spent wall-clock in the DWARF parser..." When the > former goes from 20 to 2000, that will be a much clearer symbol that we > probably introduced a performance regression. Yes, I agree. I addressed all the comments. Jim, can you please take a look? Thanks! https://reviews.llvm.org/D45547 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
