Please try again, because i know at least one person, which successfully 
used it already.

Cheers,
Ralf.

Scott Hyndman wrote:

> Ralf,
> 
> I think I have something.
> 
> But tell me, is the build available at 
> http://svn.sourcesecure.co.uk/osflash/mtaschacks/bokel/bin/ the latest? My 
> pop method isn't getting hit.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Scott
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Ralf Bokelberg
> Sent: Thu 1/19/2006 10:35 AM
> To:   Open Source Flash Mailing List
> Cc:   
> Subject:      Re: [osflash] hamtasc: stacktrace available
> 
> I was just talking to myself, because i'm tending to overcomplicate 
> things ;)
> 
> Cheers,
> Ralf.
> 
> Scott Hyndman wrote:
> 
> 
>>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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>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

_______________________________________________
osflash mailing list
[email protected]
http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/osflash_osflash.org

Reply via email to