Browse thread
[Caml-list] Profiling a function execution
[
Home
]
[ Index:
by date
|
by threads
]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: | 2003-11-25 (18:05) |
From: | Xavier Leroy <xavier.leroy@i...> |
Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] Profiling a function execution |
Just to complement Damien's answers: > 2) Unix.times seems to have a low resolution, which means that my > timings are often 0.0 (unless I execute the function a lot of times). I > don't want to use Unix.gettimeofday because this prevents me to make > the difference between user and system time. Has anybody bindings to > the getrusage function or another idea ? At least under Linux, getrusage() doesn't provide more accuracy than times(), since the kernel maintains user and system time as an integral number of clock ticks. I haven't looked at other Unix kernels, but I suspect that the additional precision made possible by the getrusage() syscall is simply not exploited. (Besides, times() is part of the POSIX standard while getrusage() is not, meaning less portability.) > 4) Is it possible to know at runtime whether we are running native code > or interpreted bytecode ? Some clever hacks involving external C functions were given on this list. I'm not sure I would endorse them :-) But your question begs another question: why would you need to do distinguish native code from bytecode? We're working hard on removing the last discrepancies between the two compilers... - Xavier Leroy ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners