From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE, MSGID_SHORT,REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!udel!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!sei!firth From: firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Inheritance & limited private types Message-ID: <4697@bd.sei.cmu.edu> Date: 27 Oct 89 17:50:37 GMT References: <48695@ricerca.UUCP> <6845@hubcap.clemson.edu> <126675@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> <31018@news.Think.COM> <800@philmtl.philips.ca> Reply-To: firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth) Organization: Software Engineering Institute, Pittsburgh, PA List-Id: In article <800@philmtl.philips.ca> pedersen@philmtl.philips.ca (Paul Pedersen) writes: >The conclusion I came to was that it is not possible to do profiling >using UNIX on a fast processor, short of using a logic analyzer and a >lot of interpreting software (far from sure that this is even feasable). > >I would be *very* interested in hearing from anybody who has solved this >problem (I gave up) :-) Gee, I implemented profiling on this Unix machine in an afternoon. Admittedly, I was helped by the existence of a system call 'profil', which does all the real work. The purpose of profiling is to find out where the program is spending a lot of its time. Now, the profiling command samples the program counter 100 times a second, so in a one-minute run that is 6000 samples. Any subprogram body that consumes more than 1% of the mill will therefore generate on average more than 60 hits, which is surely a meaningful number. If no program run ever takes more than a minute, few Unix users will care about having it tuned. And if a given function uses less than 1% of the mill, you don't care about tuning it.