On Dec 15, 2013, at 11:59 PM, Ron Savage <[email protected]> wrote: Does everyone know about this: http://research.swtch.com/pprof
Yes, but I’m skeptical about profiling libraries. At all. 1. Always prefer time-based sampling over call-based sampling. call-based (like cachegrind or -pg) distorts the result heavily, and there’s no need to do that. 2. You better let the kernel do the time-based sampling, not a library (-lpprof, -lp) or instrumentation (cachegrind, dtrace) - which is basically run-time patching of every function call. use dwarf to get the call-stack. afterwards, not online. how they lie: http://www.yosefk.com/blog/how-profilers-lie-the-cases-of-gprof-and-kcachegrind.html sampling vs instrumenting http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lang.lua.luajit/3413 Just use the kernel provided framework: perf or systemtap on linux, Instruments on darwin. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "marpa parser" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
