| Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
#121
| |||
| |||
| Nathan Mates ecrivit le 06/04/2005 01:00 : > In article <LJSdnel1tMiBj87fRVn-gg@rogers.com>, > Mark A. Gibbs <x_gibbsmark@rogers.com_x> wrote: > >>> Personally, I'd like to see compilers give *MORE* information back. >>>At the end of compiling and/or linking, I want a big text file >>>(optionally) kicked out, saying the following: > > >>> Functions that aren't inlined, but probably should be: >>> void SomeClass: oNothing(void) - 0 bytes, called 5 times>>> float GameLoop::GetDT(void) - 4 bytes, called 1463 times >>> void Bar::Baz(int &) - 4 bytes, called 840 times >>> [...] > > >>not a bad idea, but not entirely relevant by itself. if you could also >>get *runtime* information such as the actual number of times each >>function was called, that would be neat. > > > Runtime profiling like that will *kill* your performance. There's > millions of functions called per second, each of which has to have > code inserted to increment a counter (64 bit minimum, which is a big > hit on a 32-bit processor). Your in-game profiler shouldn't have a > huge hit on performance-- 5% is borderline "too much" in my book. Isn't it what the Java JIT is doing ? |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
In an effort to better serve ads to our visitors, cookies are used on objectmix.com. For more information, check out our Privacy Policy.