On 07/25/2011 12:44 PM, Hilaire Fernandes wrote:
> Read bellow and tell me what you think about it?
> The way MessageTally renders the method tree seems to me inconsistent.
> 
> Hilaire
> 
> -------- Message original --------
> Sujet: Re: Profile interpretation
> Date : Sun, 24 Jul 2011 20:26:33 +0200
> De : Andreas Raab <[email protected]>
> Répondre à : The general-purpose Squeak developers list
> <[email protected]>
> Pour : The general-purpose Squeak developers list
> <[email protected]>
> Groupes de discussion: gmane.comp.lang.smalltalk.squeak.general
> Références : <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
> <[email protected]>
> 
> On 7/24/2011 18:42, Hilaire Fernandes wrote:
>> As we are writing about bogus, you can explain me one aspect of the
>> profile I found hard to interpret. If you look at this profile snippet
>> (I hope it will print in a readable form):
>>
>>>      |      |                          16.7% {2692ms} 
>>> DrGeo>>updateDirtyCostumes
>>>      |      |                            16.6% {2686ms} 
>>> DrGAngle3PointsCostume(DrGMathItemCostume)>>update
>>>      |      |                              10.4% {1674ms} 
>>> DrGAngle3PointsCostume>>redraw
>>>      |      |                                |9.4% {1513ms} 
>>> DrGAngle3PointsCostume>>redrawShape
>>>      |      |                                |  9.3% {1496ms} 
>>> DrGAngle3PointsCostume>>redrawArc
>>>      |      |                                |    9.2% {1485ms} 
>>> DrGArcMorph>>center:radius:origin:length:
>>>      |      |                                |      8.6% {1395ms} 
>>> DrGArcMorph(PolygonMorph)>>computeBounds
>>>      |      |                                |        7.8% {1255ms} 
>>> DrGArcMorph(PolygonMorph)>>curveBounds
>>>      |      |                                |          7.6% {1231ms} 
>>> DrGArcMorph(PolygonMorph)>>lineSegmentsDo:
>>>      |      |                                |            7.2% {1162ms} 
>>> DrGArcMorph(PolygonMorph)>>coefficients
>>>      |      |                                |              4.3% {687ms} 
>>> Cubic>>bestSegments
>>>      |      |                                |                2.8% {447ms} 
>>> Cubic>>calcEnoughSegments
>>>      |      |                                |                  |1.8% 
>>> {297ms} Cubic>>enough:withMeasure:withIn:
>>>      |      |                                |                  |  1.8% 
>>> {291ms} Cubic>>measureFor:
>>>      |      |                                |                  |    1.6% 
>>> {251ms} Cubic(SequenceableCollection)>>polynomialEval:
>>>      |      |                                |                1.5% {239ms} 
>>> Cubic>>honeIn:
>>>      |      |                              3.1% {501ms} 
>>> DrGSegmentCostume>>redraw
>>
>>
>> The way the message calls are nested in the profile result, for me it
>> says: DrGSegmentCostume>>redraw is called in the context of
>> DrGAngle3PointsCostume(DrGMathItemCostume)>>update which is absolutely
>> not the case. So what is it?
> 
> Don't know. I have not seen any problems with incorrectly reported call
> trees. The only thing I could imagine is that the calls to
> DrGMathItemCostume are incorrectly coalesced by MessageTally.
> Alternatively, it's possible that changes to context or compiled method
> in Pharo have something to do with it (MessageTally relies a lot on
> method / context comparisons for reporting).
> 
>> Le 24/07/2011 13:25, Andreas Raab a écrit :
>>> Your best bet at this point is probably to go back to a VM that doesn't
>>> have the problem (probably as far as 3.6 if that's feasible) or to
>>> extract the OpenQwaq system profiler which you could then run on the
>>> desktop (I'm not sure if it's supported by the Stack VM; you could try
>>> it to see if it works on the iPad as well).
>>
>> Is this OpenQwaq system profiler located at the image level or VM level?
> 
> It's purely in the image but it needs VM support which I think is only
> in Cog.

I extracted it and uploaded it to SqueakSource [1]. It's still GPLv2

 [1] http://www.squeaksource.com/SystemProfilerPharo.html

Cheers
Philippe


Reply via email to