[PB4.20b1] Profiler should also show the used time per line

IceSoft · Post by **IceSoft** » Tue Jan 01, 2008 3:59 pm

Profiler should also show the used time per line, maybe optional.

Post by **freak** » Tue Jan 01, 2008 4:21 pm

As i explained in the announcement, the fact that the program runs with debugger makes
timing information useless.

IceSoft · Post by **IceSoft** » Tue Jan 01, 2008 4:33 pm

freak wrote:As i explained in the announcement, the fact that the program runs with debugger makes
timing information useless.

You have right if I use breakpoints.
But If I run in debug mode without any stops...so I get a time which can help me to improve the code.
Of course a log file is also very helpfull to get infos about the terminated prog.

Post by **freak** » Tue Jan 01, 2008 4:55 pm

The debugger has to perform runtime checks and process commands from the IDE/external debugger.
This usually takes much longer than the execution of the actual line.

So the values you would get say nothing about how long the actual line needed to execute.
No matter if you use breakpoints or not.

IceSoft · Post by **IceSoft** » Tue Jan 01, 2008 5:12 pm

But a log file could be usefull. What think you about a log file?

remi_meier · Post by **remi_meier** » Tue Jan 01, 2008 11:32 pm

You can use my Analyzer. Unfortunately my webspace disappeared and the
old package (with docs etc.) is somewhere on another PC but this version
should work:
http://remi.secretly.de/downloads/analyzer.exe

It will modify your file (IIRC), so use "%COMPILEFILE" when using it as IDE
plugin. Furthermore it doesn't recognize IncludeFiles -> you have to merge
the files (with appropriate tools).

Joakim Christiansen · Tue Jan 01, 2008 11:35 pm

freak wrote:So the values you would get say nothing about how long the actual line needed to execute.

Not even a little pinpoint?

Post by **freak** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 12:15 am

Maybe we can add a spechial time-profiling mode later on (maybe without the debugger).
For now, the line-profiling is already very useful, just give it a try.

IceSoft · Post by **IceSoft** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 12:26 am

freak wrote:Maybe we can add a spechial time-profiling mode later on (maybe without the debugger).
For now, the line-profiling is already very useful, just give it a try.

Yes it is usefull.

maw · Post by **maw** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 9:31 am

From this Fred and Freak now has drawn the following conclusion: Never ever introduce new features, they'll just demand more

IceSoft · Post by **IceSoft** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 10:53 am

maw wrote:From this Fred and Freak now has drawn the following conclusion: Never ever introduce new features, they'll just demand more

Not right.
New features will be only compared with existing features on other products.

BTW:
Higher, faster, better...that are human goals.

Little John · Post by **Little John** » Thu Jan 03, 2008 2:22 pm

freak wrote:Maybe we can add a spechial time-profiling mode later on (maybe without the debugger).

That's what I wanted to say, too: Since the debugger disturbs time-profiling, implement the time-profiling with the debugger switched off.

freak wrote:For now, the line-profiling is already very useful, just give it a try.

I have tried that some time ago with another programming language. It's best when users have the choice between linecount-profiling and time-profiling. I personally mostly need time-profiling.

Regards, Little John

Kazmirzak · Post by **Kazmirzak** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 3:39 pm

I agree.

So it should also be available when the debugger is off! Simply add "Start with time checking" to the "Run" menu.

The debugger has to perform runtime checks

- True but irrelevant: Who sais I want the debugger while time testing?