From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Julian Graham" Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: pass at srfi-89 implementation Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 00:12:16 -0400 Message-ID: <2bc5f8210808212112t707bdff5g6486c0aa0dc94f0c@mail.gmail.com> References: <2bc5f8210805022037t73e3e30ay835ad4814e308397@mail.gmail.com> <87ve198hxr.fsf@gnu.org> <2bc5f8210805242208q503c33bfj96cb1f1a8fb2594d@mail.gmail.com> <87lk1w19aw.fsf@gnu.org> <2bc5f8210807272119r2102e523ocd115e538a525d40@mail.gmail.com> <87sktbrcw2.fsf@gnu.org> <2bc5f8210808161419x25fefebcp922d5def09958610@mail.gmail.com> <874p5gywdz.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1219378385 301 80.91.229.12 (22 Aug 2008 04:13:05 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 04:13:05 +0000 (UTC) Cc: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ludovic_Court=E8s?= , guile-devel@gnu.org To: "Andy Wingo" Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Aug 22 06:13:58 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1KWO26-00023I-Gz for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 22 Aug 2008 06:13:54 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:41051 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KWO19-0008A4-3U for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 22 Aug 2008 00:12:55 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KWO15-00089u-Sh for guile-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 22 Aug 2008 00:12:51 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KWO14-00089h-7T for guile-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 22 Aug 2008 00:12:51 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=43081 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KWO14-00089e-2A for guile-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 22 Aug 2008 00:12:50 -0400 Original-Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com ([66.249.92.168]:41424) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1KWO13-0007hw-FS for guile-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 22 Aug 2008 00:12:49 -0400 Original-Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id m2so46342uge.17 for ; Thu, 21 Aug 2008 21:12:48 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=nPRTkPcgwbFtHaM1uGc1cr8jvPippniU1LkeF9Gxdeg=; b=DMk2TPGa7b/rIrFWMoGVFsOGIZUKeDWmvV9bK8cR0G360aRlfEO+PlikL0s0o2M+5l mhmNWnYz5FX/+86iHuBbyuRNax2UPl+vrbWcdjS3wDrHWOeixtQm1HdBBBoIvduMXLzW XcdwN0+k0XJODBUJVXw7yy1tvTyelJdkud0as= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references; b=phKJ2Rv9004TD3zTrgz6ROm7BxorF9mnvCgp1F8hCyHgf6FAiAA4wpYit+0drb2bmx HzyCEyX7H/J/3GlnbZpDE4w3i6Pw2wEJMkC0riFGCIS1WCJc+NwiChJ0aUvJ6np/p9Wl Q4HoqeuryXMpW8JgFtTj/GxBh+R4UrQodcljw= Original-Received: by 10.66.241.13 with SMTP id o13mr2113274ugh.78.1219378336741; Thu, 21 Aug 2008 21:12:16 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.66.248.1 with HTTP; Thu, 21 Aug 2008 21:12:16 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Content-Disposition: inline X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:7487 Archived-At: > I just ran the statprof unit test and it seems to still be OK. Perhaps > in Julien's run, there simply was not enough time in user space relative > to the sampling frequency. (Certainly statprof should deal with this in > a more intelligent fashion.) That's certainly possible (I take it you're using "user space" to mean "non-primitive function code"), although I know it's collecting some samples at least because I've added `display' calls to statprof itself. One thing I just noticed is that the whole profiling process seems to work fine if count-calls? is false -- is that part of the unit test? On a more general note, it would be great if statprof were more robust / could profile more and different types of code. When you say "pull statprof into guile itself," Andy, do you mean getting profiling functionality into libguile or just including the module in the core distribution? (The former would be pretty sweet...) Regards, Julian