This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Some (small) c++ compilation profiling data (oprofile)




--On Monday, May 20, 2002 09:39:55 PM -0700 Zack Weinberg 
<zack@codesourcery.com> wrote:

> On Sun, May 19, 2002 at 01:26:13AM +0100, John Levon wrote:
>
>> Time spent
>>
>> VMA      Samples  %age total  symbol
>
> Heh.  These
>
>> 081a1f90 88239    1.04199     output_format
>> 084107f4 92606    1.09356     dyn_string_append_cstr_len
>> 0808bbc0 145033   1.71266     cp_thing
>> 081a1dc0 148982   1.75929     wrap_text
>
> are only used to generate diagnostic messages.  Did it spew a ton of
> errors before giving up?
>
> Unfortunately, that means this isn't much of a comparison of the
> parsers, since we wind up doing different work.
>
>> ...
>> 0823b090 91493    1.08042     ht_lookup
>> 0813a030 101159   1.19456     walk_tree
>> 0815f720 110315   1.30268     cp_parser_lookup_name
>> 080788a0 142408   1.68166     grokdeclarator
>> 0835ce50 158204   1.86819     ggc_alloc
>> 0835d310 399979   4.72325     ggc_set_mark
>> 082388b0 403951   4.77015     ggc_mark_trees
>
> The absence of any other cp_parser_* functions in this is a hopeful
> sign, though.

Note that the new parser has not been tuned for speed *at all*.  Heck,
I didn't even do the usual operator precedence stuff; we do the full
recursion for expressions in the naive way you would if you typed in
the C++ grammar directly.

I've got a few tricks up my sleeve for the new parser -- but
correctness first.  That's hard enough, for now...

--
Mark Mitchell                   mark@codesourcery.com
CodeSourcery, LLC               http://www.codesourcery.com


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]