Re: some profiling numbers

[Neil Booth <neil at daikokuya dot co dot uk>]

graydon hoare wrote:-

> >- You call out the preprocessor (cpp*.c) as a source of additional
> > code between 2.95 and 3.0, but this is not entirely fair, because
> > all the same work was being done in 2.95 but in a separate
> > executable.  I would like to see higher level information about time
> > spent in *all* the programs run in the course of a kernel build -- I
> > believe oprofile is ideally suited to collecting such information.
> > (It looks like this information is in the first few charts at the
> > top of the report, but not in others.)
> >
> 
> sorry for being unclear; in all profiles I am summing the times spent in 
> cpp and cc1, both. what I meant was that some preprocessor-related 
> symbols did increase. I do not know if this is because they didn't exist 
> in the old preprocessor (and got added) or because they are implemented 
> in a more slow way in the new preprocessor. haven't looked closely.

The old preprocessor was separate from cc1.  It was almost completely
rewritten and integrated into the cc1 binary for 3.0.  Most function
names changed.

Neil.