labath added a comment. In D117632#3253445 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D117632#3253445>, @jingham wrote:
> I was about to say this shouldn't matter, since most people don't run with > timers enabled and the timers should be no-ops when timing is off. But > LLDB_SCOPED_TIMER seems to do a bunch of work even when the timers are > disabled. The work includes "look up the Category in the map of categories, > making a new one if not found", get the current time of day and stash that > away, and do whatever the Signpost chooses to do on entry & exit. So this > would be adding non-trivial work for everybody for every SB API call. > > Is this really necessary? Seems like you could have LLDB_SCOPED_TIMER do > nothing if the Timer::g_display_depth == 0. That would mean that you > wouldn't get timings for the remaining bit of any timers that would have been > active when you enabled the timers, but that doesn't seem particularly wrong > to me... The way that timers currently work is that they are always active and measuring and can always be retrieved via `log timers dump`. `g_display_depth` (and `log timers enable`) only control whether their information gets dumped to stdout. Apart from that, I don't have any particular opinion on this. I can't say I have found the lldb timers particularly useful. I think we could make then sufficiently cheap so that they could be added to every SB method (and hidden in the LLDB_RECORD_METHOD macro, since we already have it), but if I wanted to do some performance analysis, I'd probably use a profiler. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D117632/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D117632 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
