Who you calling stupid? ;) Yeah, I'll let you know.
Scott -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Ralf Bokelberg Sent: Thu 1/19/2006 9:38 AM To: Open Source Flash Mailing List Cc: Subject: Re: [osflash] hamtasc: stacktrace available I'd say kiss, since normaly i'm are not interested in the absolute timing, but only need to know, where the hotspots are. Anyway, i'm eager to see, what you come up with. Cheers, Ralf. Scott Hyndman wrote: > Good point Nicolas, > > But to amend what you've said, in many cases it would require even more than > the subtraction of only two getTimer() calls. Any function that calls any > other function internally would have to have its time changes based on the > number of internal function calls it performs. Since we have the stack data, > we can have these times kind of bubble up, or just an internal function count > or something...but this will add even more overhead. > > I'm going to give it a shot. I'll let everyone know, > > Scott > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Nicolas Cannasse > Sent: Thu 1/19/2006 2:21 AM > To: Open Source Flash Mailing List > Cc: > Subject: Re: [osflash] hamtasc: stacktrace available > > >>very nice...now we just need someone to write a tool that will record >>the entry & exit every time a function is called, as well as a timestamp >>(from getTimer()), then process all this data to profile your app, >>giving output similar to the gprof tool. >> >> % cumulative self self total >> time seconds seconds calls ms/call ms/call name >> 17.7 3.72 3.72 13786208 0.00 0.00 Ns_DStringNAppend [8] >> 6.1 >> 5.00 1.28 107276 0.01 0.03 MakePath [10] >> 2.9 5.60 0.60 1555972 0.00 0.00 Ns_DStringFree [35] >> 2.7 6.18 0.58 1555965 0.00 0.00 Ns_DStringInit [36] >> >>2.3 6.67 0.49 1507858 0.00 0.00 ns_realloc [40] >>[example pulled from random webpage] >> >>That would be helpful for finding bottlenecks in your code. > > > The problem is that for very small function getting called often, the > overhead of timestamp operations will be too much big and will greatly > increase the weight of theses functions in the profile report. Unless > you run some benchmark first to deduce the cost of the 2 getTimers and > subtract it from the time spent in function. > > Nicolas > > _______________________________________________ > osflash mailing list > [email protected] > http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/osflash_osflash.org > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > osflash mailing list > [email protected] > http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/osflash_osflash.org _______________________________________________ osflash mailing list [email protected] http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/osflash_osflash.org
<<winmail.dat>>
_______________________________________________ osflash mailing list [email protected] http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/osflash_osflash.org
