http://codereview.chromium.org/1105009/diff/1/2 File include/v8-profiler.h (right):
http://codereview.chromium.org/1105009/diff/1/2#newcode88 include/v8-profiler.h:88: */ On 2010/03/23 09:35:37, Michail Naganov wrote:
On 2010/03/23 08:25:11, Søren Gjesse wrote: > Should we consider using uint64_t and change to a higher resolution
than
> milliseconds?
I propose doubles for easier interconnection with JavaScript, where
Numbers are
doubles.
I think there is no need to try to achieve a better resolution, than milliseconds with a software-only (that is, not using CPU h/w
counters)
profiler.
I concur on the double change, plus it would allow you to specify sub-millisecond if you needed to. I've been playing with profiling activity over short intervals. I did an experimental change to the profiler on Mac which uses usleep() with lower granularity profiles and it was somewhat useful (if not entirely accurate). But the best profile timer (linux itimer TIMER_PROFILE) only gave about 2-4ms granularity when set to 1ms anyway. http://codereview.chromium.org/1105009 -- v8-dev mailing list [email protected] http://groups.google.com/group/v8-dev To unsubscribe from this group, send email to v8-dev+unsubscribegooglegroups.com or reply to this email with the words "REMOVE ME" as the subject.
