From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15195 invoked from network); 19 Mar 2001 22:25:39 -0000 Received: from sunsite.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 19 Mar 2001 22:25:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 1413 invoked by alias); 19 Mar 2001 22:25:23 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 13671 Received: (qmail 1373 invoked from network); 19 Mar 2001 22:25:22 -0000 Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 22:25:21 +0000 From: Adam Spiers To: zsh workers mailing list Subject: misalignment in zprof output Message-ID: <20010319222521.A22571@thelonious.new.ox.ac.uk> Reply-To: Adam Spiers Mail-Followup-To: zsh workers mailing list Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.4i X-Home-Page: http://www.new.ox.ac.uk/~adam/ X-OS: RedHat Linux Just started to fiddle with zprof with the intent of spotting any bottlenecks in my zsh startup (initial experiments show promptinit as being quite bad), and spotted some "%5.2f%%" fields in printf() calls, some of which should evidently be "%6.2f%%" as it's possible for some of the fields to reach 100.00%, e.g. (apologies for long lines) num calls time self name ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) 1 679.84 679.84 36.98% 679.84 679.84 36.98% compdump 2) 189 647.31 3.42 35.21% 647.31 3.42 35.21% compdef 3) 1 1838.18 1838.18 100.00% 355.17 355.17 19.32% compinit 4) 2 155.87 77.93 8.48% 155.87 77.93 8.48% compaudit ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) 1 1838.18 1838.18 100.00% 355.17 355.17 19.32% compinit 1/2 155.87 155.87 8.48% 6.09 6.09 compaudit [4] 189/189 647.31 3.42 35.21% 647.31 3.42 compdef [2] 1/1 679.84 679.84 36.98% 679.84 679.84 compdump [1] I don't know off-hand which fields can reach 100% and which can't; could someone more knowledgeable give these a tweak?