From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Original-To: caml-list@sympa.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@sympa.inria.fr Received: from mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.104]) by sympa.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C613C7ED1D for ; Wed, 14 Oct 2015 09:59:34 +0200 (CEST) IronPort-PHdr: 9a23:/870TRMt8qbanpMGefYl6mtUPXoX/o7sNwtQ0KIMzox0KPnzrarrMEGX3/hxlliBBdydsKIYzbqL+4nbGkU+or+5+EgYd5JNUxJXwe43pCcHRPC/NEvgMfTxZDY7FskRHHVs/nW8LFQHUJ2mPw6anHS+4HYoFwnlMkItf6KuStKU35n//tvx0qOQSj0AvCC6b7J2IUf+hiTqne5Sv7FfLL0swADCuHpCdrce72ppIVWOg0S0vZ/or9YwuxhX7vko8soITL73Zb9wGbdRCTBjN2Eu+OXqswPCRE2B/C1PfH8Rl09rDg7D4Q36Fr79uy6yk+t53CSAdZn1QLYyVCii5qtiTRrpjCMKLRY29WjWjop7i6cN80HpnAB234OBONLdD/F5ZK6IJd4= Authentication-Results: mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr; spf=None smtp.pra=kennethadammiller@gmail.com; spf=Pass smtp.mailfrom=kennethadammiller@gmail.com; spf=None smtp.helo=postmaster@mail-yk0-f169.google.com Received-SPF: None (mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of kennethadammiller@gmail.com) identity=pra; client-ip=209.85.160.169; receiver=mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="kennethadammiller@gmail.com"; x-sender="kennethadammiller@gmail.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible Received-SPF: Pass (mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: domain of kennethadammiller@gmail.com designates 209.85.160.169 as permitted sender) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=209.85.160.169; receiver=mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="kennethadammiller@gmail.com"; x-sender="kennethadammiller@gmail.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible; x-record-type="v=spf1" Received-SPF: None (mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of postmaster@mail-yk0-f169.google.com) identity=helo; client-ip=209.85.160.169; receiver=mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="kennethadammiller@gmail.com"; x-sender="postmaster@mail-yk0-f169.google.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0BTAgAwCh5WnKmgVdFeg0U1bga/ZBmCeoIKfwKBNAc8EAEBAQEBAQEBEAEBAQEBBg0JCSEugh+CCAEBAwESER0BGx4DAQsGBQQHNwICIQEBEQEFARwGEyKHdgEDCgihL4ExPjGLSYFsgnmJDAoZJw1WhDQBAQgCARkBBQ6GaYR9glCCRIJpgUUFlhWFGYYOgXSBWEiSIYNagiMSI4EXOIIvI4F3IjOGbwEBAQ X-IPAS-Result: A0BTAgAwCh5WnKmgVdFeg0U1bga/ZBmCeoIKfwKBNAc8EAEBAQEBAQEBEAEBAQEBBg0JCSEugh+CCAEBAwESER0BGx4DAQsGBQQHNwICIQEBEQEFARwGEyKHdgEDCgihL4ExPjGLSYFsgnmJDAoZJw1WhDQBAQgCARkBBQ6GaYR9glCCRIJpgUUFlhWFGYYOgXSBWEiSIYNagiMSI4EXOIIvI4F3IjOGbwEBAQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.17,681,1437429600"; d="scan'208";a="150485569" Received: from mail-yk0-f169.google.com ([209.85.160.169]) by mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-GCM-SHA256; 14 Oct 2015 09:59:31 +0200 Received: by ykoo7 with SMTP id o7so40265936yko.0 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 2015 00:59:30 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=fnadcLfyY12Bzx6elPbkhkMWubgkpsUIlFcGwd2wZAk=; b=L+eDB5HhbwG/IAQu8M7jJbyP9uwlcbpfHZ5OIBaDq1v/w80GEyUDhCpiCuqLukOsxZ CaYb3XvNZBEeNpNeVUbf1Kj1nhzyFI1EAkD5K9fFN7ibu+2/l75AvOuGTgVuAAkyZUrE 7+XvQ2zoSfo0XGMvL/0aS/WilcgWpyyfxkap3R17NxzxmbJn+VvNlVWKcE7SBp+Xm1jX 3lBNURktXB1gy/LMxUvboOQ6g0zIpwd1Lqk7zUOw0I/XSUbK8r11gCrTlAD/ck397aEY We8diHO3XAfiOeT7vzSxuwxOQ6rXE1WPh6UuluyripyUWwjfxfDP/1FB1E+cfKqRXXiR rZ5w== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.129.132.65 with SMTP id u62mr1103793ywf.290.1444809570350; Wed, 14 Oct 2015 00:59:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.37.65.143 with HTTP; Wed, 14 Oct 2015 00:59:30 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 03:59:30 -0400 Message-ID: From: Kenneth Adam Miller To: caml users Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c07ac2035821805220bf1a6 Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Automated Instrumentation for Profiling --94eb2c07ac2035821805220bf1a6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Actually, I asked that question a bit prematurely, but any answers to number 2 are still welcome-I'd like to know about any and all options. For the record, for number 1, you can get the associated profiling with a vanilla ocamlbuild/oasis setup without any hairy plugin by doing: ocaml setup.ml -tag profile >From there, just executing your program like normal will have it poop out a little gmon.out that you can work with with gprof. As far as how good it is, it's as good as gprof/gmon because that's what it is behind the scenes. On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 3:44 AM, Kenneth Adam Miller < kennethadammiller@gmail.com> wrote: > So, I'm looking to do some performance profiling of some libraries and > tools. I would like some tools that are more language facilitated than an > alternative of using something like oprofile because while oprofile is > good, you can only guess at what is consuming the most time in your actual > ocaml source because all the function names have been lost by that time. > > I found ocamlviz, and that seems pretty good, but I'm looking for > something else because we plan to move away from using camlp4 toward ppx. > Introducing this will mean an additional hurdle to overcome once the > transition is complete in terms of customizing the build chain twice. > > In any case, I guess what I'd really like to know is: > > 1) How good are the ocamlcp and ocamloptp tools and how would you get a > vanilla oasis/ocamlbuild combo to easily start using them instead? > > 2) Are there any ppx based profiling tools out there? I need both memory > and time profiling to be done. OCamlviz was great because it had a graph-I > don't necessarily need a dedicated gui, but some way to visualize the data > would be very helpful. > --94eb2c07ac2035821805220bf1a6 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Actually, I asked that question a bit prematurely, but any= answers to number 2 are still welcome-I'd like to know about any and a= ll options.


For the record, for number 1,= you can get the associated profiling with a vanilla ocamlbuild/oasis setup= without any hairy plugin by doing:
ocaml setup.ml <options options options> -tag profile
From there, just executing your program like normal will have = it poop out a little gmon.out that you can work with with gprof. As far as = how good it is, it's as good as gprof/gmon because that's what it i= s behind the scenes.

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 3:44 AM, Kenneth Adam Miller <kennethadammiller@gmail.com> wrote:
So, I'm looking to do some performance= profiling of some libraries and tools. I would like some tools that are mo= re language facilitated than an alternative of using something like oprofil= e because while oprofile is good, you can only guess at what is consuming t= he most time in your actual ocaml source because all the function names hav= e been lost by that time.

I found ocamlviz, and that see= ms pretty good, but I'm looking for something else because we plan to m= ove away from using camlp4 toward ppx. Introducing this will mean an additi= onal hurdle to overcome once the transition is complete in terms of customi= zing the build chain twice.

In any case, I guess w= hat I'd really like to know is:

1) How good ar= e the ocamlcp and ocamloptp tools and how would you get a vanilla oasis/oca= mlbuild combo to easily start using them instead?

= 2) Are there any ppx based profiling tools out there? I need both memory an= d time profiling to be done. OCamlviz was great because it had a graph-I do= n't necessarily need a dedicated gui, but some way to visualize the dat= a would be very helpful.

--94eb2c07ac2035821805220bf1a6--