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!


lldb-commits mailing list

Reply via email to