[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Next steps for profiler
From: |
Rik |
Subject: |
Re: Next steps for profiler |
Date: |
Sun, 24 Jul 2011 15:22:43 -0700 |
>>> >> * In general for the profiler, should I add tests? I'm much in
>>> >> favour of testing as much as possible, but I'm not sure how to do
>>> >> this best. Maybe by some hierarchy of test-functions which call
>>> >> sleep at some points? And then compare the profiler output with
>>> >> expected times up to some "epsilon"?
>> >
>> > I don't think meaningful tests can be made other checking that it
>> > errors out correctly when you give it the wrong output arguments.
>> > Demos as you've been making are good. You can't predict what the
>> > times will be as (1) this can in the end depend on a lot of Octave
>> > code that is not part of the profiling code, so you would be testing
>> > a lot more than just the profiler (2) depends on hardware.
> Hm, I think that if we just use test functions without calling a lot of
> Octave intrinsics and 'sleep' to take up time, it should (possibly) be
> doable to get more or less reliable times (after some rounding). But I
> also think that this may be fragile and so it may be better to just not
> try adding tests.
I, personally, am not that interested in seeing tests for the profiler
beyond the basic ones outlined above. If we need something to really vet
the profiler I would make it a fixed test script and put it in the tests/
directory and not have it get run on a regular basis.
>
> Regarding the next projects (as per your other message): I thought that
> a first kind of UI would be most useful -- but this is now already
> implemented with profshow. So my next steps (after the recursive flag
> printing, which is trivial) will be to tackle operators and anonymous
> functions and hope that I'll have more luck this time. ;)
>
> BTW, nice to know that Matlab doesn't do operators -- maybe we can
> really be first for them! :)
I'm definitely interested in operators, but less so in anonymous functions.
If you have to prioritize I would do operators first and anonymous
functions as time allows.
Cheers,
Rik
[Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- Re: Next steps for profiler,
Rik <=