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: New branch for STL Advisor

From: Paolo Carlini <paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com>
To: Benjamin Kosnik <bkoz at redhat dot com>, Doug Gregor <doug dot gregor at gmail dot com>
Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, Silvius Rus <rus at google dot com>, David Li <davidxl at google dot com>, Lixia Liu <lixialiu at google dot com>, libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 05:10:47 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: New branch for STL Advisor
Accept-language: en-US
References: <4877D666.7070206@google.com> <20080714162021.5c1954cf@balbo.artheist.org> <24b520d20807141822g54a60de2yd1c091e84cc04b5f@mail.gmail.com>

> This ties in with the main question I had... typically, a
> profiling layer is used on larger inputs where it is important that the
> profiling code itself have very low overhead. Piggybacking on
> the debug mode is a definite performance-killer, so I hope that
> the profiling version of the library will be in its own inline
> namespace alongside the parallel and debug modes.
> 
> My vote for the command-line switch is -fprofile-stdlib.

I agree, on both accounts.

Paolo.

References:
- New branch for STL Advisor
  - From: Silvius Rus
- Re: New branch for STL Advisor
  - From: Benjamin Kosnik
- Re: New branch for STL Advisor
  - From: Doug Gregor

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