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: GCC's trunk, it is necessary to improve the timings from gprof/gcc -pg.

From: "Andrew Pinski" <pinskia at gmail dot com>
To: "Joe Buck" <Joe dot Buck at synopsys dot com>
Cc: "J.C. Pizarro" <jcpiza at gmail dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 15:48:27 -0700
Subject: Re: GCC's trunk, it is necessary to improve the timings from gprof/gcc -pg.
References: <998d0e4a0705151332i221afe12y76c203830b34e336@mail.gmail.com> <20070515213854.GE21436@synopsys.com> <998d0e4a0705151502o7ccf02c8h830e6f671b0a5a55@mail.gmail.com> <20070515224508.GF21436@synopsys.com>

On 5/15/07, Joe Buck <Joe.Buck@synopsys.com> wrote:

On Wed, May 16, 2007 at 12:02:57AM +0200, J.C. Pizarro wrote:
> 2007/5/15, Joe Buck <Joe.Buck@synopsys.com> wrote:
> [ explanation of why gprof is as it is ]
> It's not well reasoned.

If you don't like my explanation, feel free to rewrite the software;
it is free software after all.  This list usually responds even to
good ideas with "patches welcome", meaning that it is up to the
proposer to do the work.

I'm not going to engage you in further discussion.


Of course gprof is unrelated to GCC except for the call to mcount that
GCC is able to emit so this is offtopic at best.

-- Pinski

References:
- GCC's trunk, it is necessary to improve the timings from gprof/gcc -pg.
  - From: J.C. Pizarro
- Re: GCC's trunk, it is necessary to improve the timings from gprof/gcc -pg.
  - From: Joe Buck
- Re: GCC's trunk, it is necessary to improve the timings from gprof/gcc -pg.
  - From: J.C. Pizarro
- Re: GCC's trunk, it is necessary to improve the timings from gprof/gcc -pg.
  - From: Joe Buck

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