This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the libstdc++ project.
ping -- Re: merge branch profile-stdlib
- From: Silvius Rus <rus at google dot com>
- To: libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Cc: Paolo Carlini <paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com>, Benjamin Kosnik <bkoz at redhat dot com>
- Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2009 09:46:28 -0700
- Subject: ping -- Re: merge branch profile-stdlib
On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 11:02 PM, Silvius Rus <email@example.com> wrote:
> Hello libstdc++ maintainers,
> I would like to merge the profile-stdlib branch into trunk. I made
> the changes requested by your previous reviews:
> - Gave up on adding a runtime library. The diagnostic implementation
> was moved from profc++/ to include/profile/impl/.
> - Reverted driver changes so that the interface is -D_GLIBCXX_DEBUG,
> consistent with current extensions.
> - Moved tests to proper locations and fixed failing unittests. (There
> are only 7 failures left in */synopsis.cc.)
> - Uglified names. I did this by placing all diagnostic implementation
> under namespace __cxxprof_impl. (Is this sufficient?)
> - Added configure checks for execinfo.h.
> Before I go with a fine comb, could you please take a look at the
> branch and let me know if there are any other major issues?
> The big picture organization is:
> - All profile extension headers live in include/profile/. They
> include profile/base.h.
> - All diagnostic implementations live in include/profile/impl/. They
> are included by profile/impl/profiler.h.
> - profile/base.h includes profile/impl/profiler.h. This is the only
> direct connection between include/profile/ and include/profile/impl/.
> The current known issues are:
> - The relation with debug and parallel extensions has not been defined.
> - We are using vector and unordered_map in the implementation, with
> default allocators. This can cause infinite cycles if say the
> application code uses libstdc++ containers to gather allocation
> - The machine-specific performance model component is not on the
> branch. I decided to treat it as a separate component and add it
> later. The decisions are based on generic operation performance
> - Many diagnostics have not been implemented yet.
> I don't think any of these issues is a show stopper and thus should
> not keep the branch from being merged.
> Thank you,