Mailing list for all users of the OCaml language and system.
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Xavier Leroy <Xavier.Leroy@inria.fr>
To: mwh@dsl.cis.upenn.edu (Michael Hicks)
Cc: caml-list@inria.fr
Subject: Re: Caml performance
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 21:33:10 +0100 (MET)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <199802102033.VAA17817@pauillac.inria.fr> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <199802011548.KAA12442@codex.cis.upenn.edu> from Michael Hicks at "Feb 1, 98 10:48:15 am"

> I've been trying to compile OCaml to be instrumented with gprof.  When I do
> so, it's possible to get profile information for the ocamlrun executable
> (the interpreter), but not for any of the additional libraries (like Unix
> and Threads), presumably because they are "linked" in with the bytecode file
> that's being executed, but do not reside in the ocamlrun executable itself.

Yes, in some sense.  If you use external libraries, a special-purpose
runtime system is created and linked with your program, and the
ocamlrun executable itself is not used at all.

> Is there any way around this?  In particular, I'm trying to find out how
> much time is spent in the thread scheduler, and gprof seemed like a good way
> to find this out.

A simple way to do this is to recompile the whole OCaml distribution
with the "-p" flag.  In config/Makefile, add "-p" to the variables
BYTECCCOMPOPTS and BYTECCLINKOPTS.  Then do make clean; make all; make
install.

For good measure, also use "ocamlc -custom -ccopt -p ..." when linking
your application, to make sure "-p" is passed to the C compiler when
linking the custom runtime system.

> Secondly, I noticed that the interpreter was not compiled, by default, with
> -O on.

That is not true.  The Makefile in byterun/ adds the "-O" option itself.
Maybe a better place for that option would be in config/Makefile
itself.  But at any rate the bytecode interpreter is compiled with -O.

> By contrast, the threads library
> scheduler does have -O turned on, so it makes me think that gcc might do
> some optimizations that are not gc-safe.

Oh no, we don't let gcc mess with the GC... The GC interface is very
explicitely written down in the C code of the interpreter.  Any
optimization that would mess with the GC interface would be
semantically incorrect in a very big way.

Best regards,

- Xavier Leroy





      reply	other threads:[~1998-02-13 19:42 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
1998-02-01 15:48 Michael Hicks
1998-02-10 20:33 ` Xavier Leroy [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=199802102033.VAA17817@pauillac.inria.fr \
    --to=xavier.leroy@inria.fr \
    --cc=caml-list@inria.fr \
    --cc=mwh@dsl.cis.upenn.edu \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox