On 13-04-05 6:39 AM, Florent D. wrote:
Hello,This is about the new "line profiling" feature in R 3.0.0. As I was testing it, I find the results somewhat disappointing so I'd like to get your opinion. I put some poorly written code in a test.R file, here are the contents: double <- function(x) { out <- c() for (i in x) { out <- c(out, 2*i) # line 4 } return(out) } Then this how I source the file and run a profile: source("test.R", keep.source = TRUE) Rprof("test.profile", line.profiling=TRUE) y <- double(1:20000) Rprof(NULL) summaryRprof("test.profile", lines = "both") The relevant part of the output is: $by.total total.time total.pct self.time self.pct "double" 0.98 100.00 0.00 0.00 "c" 0.92 93.88 0.92 93.88 test.R#4 0.06 6.12 0.06 6.12 My problem is I was expecting test.R#4 (line 4 of my file) to show up somewhere between "c" and "double", because "c" is called on line #4 of my file, and line #4 is inside the body of the "double" function. If I look at the "test.profile" where I told Rprof() to record, there are a lot of "c" "double" records while I was hoping to find "c" 1#4 "double" Can someone please explain why, when the profiler records "c", it does not record the extra information that "c" was called on line 4? Is it not possible to know? Is it a choice the developers made? An oversight?
Some function calls don't create stack frame records, so that may be your problem, but then I wouldn't have expected to see "c" there. This may be a bug.
Duncan Murdoch ______________________________________________ R-help@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
