From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id NAA10266; Sat, 15 Nov 2003 13:21:34 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id NAA10548 for ; Sat, 15 Nov 2003 13:21:33 +0100 (MET) Received: from mwinf0402.wanadoo.fr (smtp4.wanadoo.fr [193.252.22.27]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id hAFCLW113267 for ; Sat, 15 Nov 2003 13:21:32 +0100 (MET) Received: from oops (ARennes-303-1-33-41.w81-249.abo.wanadoo.fr [81.249.60.41]) by mwinf0402.wanadoo.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 41D698000E1; Sat, 15 Nov 2003 13:21:32 +0100 (CET) Received: from david by oops with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1AKzQh-0000Sf-00; Sat, 15 Nov 2003 13:21:31 +0100 To: Wolfgang Lux Cc: Richard Jones , Ocaml Mailing List Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Profiling a function execution References: <6F530E3A-175C-11D8-A49C-0003937628DA@uni-muenster.de> From: David MENTRE Organization: none Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2003 13:21:30 +0100 In-Reply-To: <6F530E3A-175C-11D8-A49C-0003937628DA@uni-muenster.de> (Wolfgang Lux's message of "Sat, 15 Nov 2003 12:11:17 +0100") Message-ID: <874qx5ddpx.fsf@linux-france.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.1002 (Gnus v5.10.2) Emacs/21.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Loop: caml-list@inria.fr X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 dmentre:01 wlux:01 uni-muenster:01 sourceforge:01 dmentre:01 distinguish:01 writes:01 mentre:01 mentre:01 wolfgang:02 worse:03 profiled:95 fingerprint:04 cycles:04 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk Hello, Wolfgang Lux writes: > This looks like complete nonsense to me. This will neither distinguish > user and system mode execution times. Even worse, clock cycles will > not have any meaning if the operating system chooses to perform a > task switch while the profiled function is executed. You're right. And the better approach might be to use profiling architectures like OProfile (http://oprofile.sourceforge.net/news/). Yours, d. -- David Mentré http://www.linux-france.org/~dmentre/david-mentre-public-key.asc GnuPG key fingerprint: A7CD 7357 3EC4 1163 745B 7FD3 FB3E AD7C 2A18 BE9E ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners