Thanks, I will give them a go. -b
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 10:36 PM, Jonas Maebe wrote:
>
> On 10 Jan 2014, at 01:13, Bruce Tulloch wrote:
>
> What is the recommended way to profile FPC applications run on ARM targets
>>
>
> Callgrind and cachegrind (both part of Valgrind) are probably the best
On 10 Jan 2014, at 01:13, Bruce Tulloch wrote:
What is the recommended way to profile FPC applications run on ARM
targets
Callgrind and cachegrind (both part of Valgrind) are probably the best
options.
Jonas
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pas
In our previous episode, Michael Van Canneyt said:
> > If there is no bug report about it, it's very likely that it will be
> > forgotten
> > over time (as in this case, apparently -- I indeed seem to remember that at
> > one point I knew about this).
>
> There is indeed a problem. I submitted a
On 27 Jan 2009, at 11:30, Mattias Gärtner wrote:
Zitat von Jonas Maebe :
I've used qprof successfully in the past (not for FPC programs, but
for other things). It's a sampling-based profiler, so it shouldn't
slow down things too much.
Yes, that's why I prefer gprof and used it a lot in the
Zitat von Jonas Maebe :
>
> On 26 Jan 2009, at 22:49, Mattias Gaertner wrote:
>
> > I need to profile lazarus applications under linux.
> > I tried gprof, but it is broken since years and shows no record.
>
> Neither does the bug repository show any record of open bugs against -
> pg on Linux.
So
On Tue, 27 Jan 2009, Jonas Maebe wrote:
>
> On 27 Jan 2009, at 10:49, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
>
> >I can confirm with Mattias. I tried over a year ago to do profiling
> >using gprof. It always generated a empty (0 byte) file. Nothing else.
> >I posted messages to the mailing list and was told
On 27 Jan 2009, at 10:49, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
I can confirm with Mattias. I tried over a year ago to do profiling
using gprof. It always generated a empty (0 byte) file. Nothing else.
I posted messages to the mailing list and was told to try valgrind
instead. It issues with gprof was known
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 10:15 AM, Jonas Maebe wrote:
>
> On 26 Jan 2009, at 22:49, Mattias Gaertner wrote:
>
>> I need to profile lazarus applications under linux.
>> I tried gprof, but it is broken since years and shows no record.
>
> Neither does the bug repository show any record of open bugs a
On 26 Jan 2009, at 22:49, Mattias Gaertner wrote:
I need to profile lazarus applications under linux.
I tried gprof, but it is broken since years and shows no record.
Neither does the bug repository show any record of open bugs against -
pg on Linux.
I found the following page, but it doe
Thanks Peter and Marco! This is very helpful.
-Alan
> For the moment only gprof. Maybe in the future also
> valgrind/cachegrind
>
> Compile your program with -pg
> Start your program (this will generate a gmon.out)
> Run gprof
>
>
>
> ___
> fpc-pa
> I'm writing a simulation that will take hours or days to run. I've
> never used formal profiling tools but this seems like a good
> opportunity. I'm working on Linux and I'm still using FPC 1.0.10.
> What tools are available to me?
gprof. Recompile everything with -pg, there should be a parag
> I'm writing a simulation that will take hours or days to run. I've
> never used formal profiling tools but this seems like a good
> opportunity. I'm working on Linux and I'm still using FPC 1.0.10.
> What tools are available to me?
For the moment only gprof. Maybe in the future also valgrind/c
> >> routines, which was also the case (the non-OO routines uses 10 sec for a
> >> 500x500 matrix inversion, while the OO routines uses 110 secs (!) for the
> >> same).
> >
> > Which compiler did you use? Which OO model did you use?
> >
> > If the answers are 1.0.6 and class then you should try the
Peter Vreman wrote:
>> I expected my OO routines to be somewhat slower than my equivalent non-OO
>> routines, which was also the case (the non-OO routines uses 10 sec for a
>> 500x500 matrix inversion, while the OO routines uses 110 secs (!) for the
>> same).
>
> Which compiler did you use? Which
> Peter Vreman wrote:
>> Which compiler did you use? Which OO model did you use?
>> If the answers are 1.0.6 and class
>
> Right answer... :-)
>
>> then you should try the 1.1 compiler and
>> add {$implicitexceptions off}
>
> OK, I'll try the 1.1. What does the {$implicitexceptions off} do (I gues
Peter Vreman wrote:
> Which compiler did you use? Which OO model did you use?
> If the answers are 1.0.6 and class
Right answer... :-)
> then you should try the 1.1 compiler and
> add {$implicitexceptions off}
OK, I'll try the 1.1. What does the {$implicitexceptions off} do (I guess it
turns im
> Hi all, I am trying to write a basic object-oriented matrix library, but
> have
> run into a problem.
>
> I expected my OO routines to be somewhat slower than my equivalent non-OO
> routines, which was also the case (the non-OO routines uses 10 sec for a
> 500x500 matrix inversion, while the OO r
> Do you know of any tools I can use to check for memory leaks on my code?
>
> I'm using FPC 1.1 snapshots under Win2k.
Compile using -gh, and check the output after termination. It will give the unitname
and line
where the memory was allocated.
There are only a few gotcha's (sometimes memory a
18 matches
Mail list logo
