• Clemens Hofreither <clemens.hofreither gmx.net> Jul 10 2008
• BCS <ao pathlink.com> Jul 10 2008
• Jason House <jason.james.house gmail.com> Jul 10 2008

Clemens Hofreither <clemens.hofreither gmx.net> writes:

I've just tried (again) to use DMD's built-in profiler, which sounds like a
great idea in theory. The problem is, it is DOG SLOW. A little benchmark
program I have put together runs in 0.04 seconds when compiled with
"-O", and in 2.75 seconds when compiled with "-O -profile". The program
that I actually want to profile is totally out of the question because I just
don't have the patience to wait for hours before even the initialization
phase is over, and even if I did the results would probably be totally
skewed from the profiler overhead anyway.

Have others made the same experience? Is there any chance the profiler
might get faster? Also, are there any free alternatives to the built-in
profiler on Windows?

-Clemens

BCS <ao pathlink.com> writes:

Reply to Clemens,

 I've just tried (again) to use DMD's built-in profiler, which sounds
 like a
 great idea in theory. The problem is, it is DOG SLOW. A little
 benchmark
 program I have put together runs in 0.04 seconds when compiled with
 "-O", and in 2.75 seconds when compiled with "-O -profile". The
 program
 that I actually want to profile is totally out of the question because
 I just
 don't have the patience to wait for hours before even the
 initialization
 phase is over, and even if I did the results would probably be totally
 skewed from the profiler overhead anyway.
 Have others made the same experience? Is there any chance the profiler
 might get faster? Also, are there any free alternatives to the
 built-in profiler on Windows?
 
 -Clemens
 


I seem to recall something like that.

Can you split the tight loops into one file and the other stuff into others. 
Then you can compile the outer stuff with profiling and not the inner stuff. 
Once you known what sub tree to profile, just profile that. It would be kind 
of a pain, but it might be a lot faster.

Jason House <jason.james.house gmail.com> writes:

gdc -pg works great for me.

Clemens Hofreither Wrote:

 I've just tried (again) to use DMD's built-in profiler, which sounds like a
 great idea in theory. The problem is, it is DOG SLOW. A little benchmark
 program I have put together runs in 0.04 seconds when compiled with
 "-O", and in 2.75 seconds when compiled with "-O -profile". The program
 that I actually want to profile is totally out of the question because I just
 don't have the patience to wait for hours before even the initialization
 phase is over, and even if I did the results would probably be totally
 skewed from the profiler overhead anyway.
 
 Have others made the same experience? Is there any chance the profiler
 might get faster? Also, are there any free alternatives to the built-in
 profiler on Windows?
 
 -Clemens