RE: -DNOPROFILE with make buildworld...
>-Original Message- >From: Erik Trulsson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: 22 June 2005 10:11 >To: Harrison Peter CSA BIRKENHEAD >Cc: Chuck Swiger; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org >Subject: Re: -DNOPROFILE with make buildworld... [snip] >> Most of the apps I'm running have been compiled from ports against >> the stock 5.3-RELEASE libraries. Are the stock libraries profiling or >> not? > >No. > >> Would I have had to explicitly set an option to compile ports to >> link against profiling libraries? > >Yes. > >> Is it therefore a reasonable >> assumption that if I didn't specifically make any binaries profiling, >> then they'll be not-profiling? > >Yes. OK, I'm clear on that now. Thanks for the response. Peter Harrison > > >-- > >Erik Trulsson >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >PLEASE NOTE: THE ABOVE MESSAGE WAS RECEIVED FROM THE INTERNET. > >On entering the GSi, this email was scanned for viruses by the >Government Secure Intranet (GSi) virus scanning service >supplied exclusively by Energis in partnership with MessageLabs. > >Please see >http://www.gsi.gov.uk/main/notices/information/gsi-003-2002.pdf for further details. In case of problems, please call your organisational IT helpdesk --- This document is strictly confidential and is intended only for use by the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or other action taken in reliance of the information contained in this e-mail is strictly prohibited. Any views expressed by the sender of this message are not necessarily those of the Department for Work and Pensions. If you have received this transmission in error, please use the reply function to tell us and then permanently delete what you have received. Please note: Incoming and outgoing e-mail messages are routinely monitored for compliance with our policy on the use of electronic communications. The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet (GSi) virus scanning service supplied exclusively by Energis in partnership with MessageLabs. On leaving the GSi this email was certified virus-free ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: -DNOPROFILE with make buildworld...
On Wed, Jun 22, 2005 at 09:46:11AM +0100, Harrison Peter CSA BIRKENHEAD wrote: > > -Original Message- > > From: Chuck Swiger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: 21 June 2005 19:25 > > To: Roland Smith > > Cc: Harrison Peter CSA BIRKENHEAD; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org > > Subject: Re: -DNOPROFILE with make buildworld... > > [snip] > > > Normally, you don't use the profiled versions of libraries > > unless you are > > running a binary which links against them. If you are > > running a binary which > > has not been compiled with profiling, the toolchain will link > > it against normal > > versions of the libraries. > > > Most of the apps I'm running have been compiled from ports against > the stock 5.3-RELEASE libraries. Are the stock libraries profiling or > not? No. > Would I have had to explicitly set an option to compile ports to > link against profiling libraries? Yes. > Is it therefore a reasonable > assumption that if I didn't specifically make any binaries profiling, > then they'll be not-profiling? Yes. -- Erik Trulsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
RE: -DNOPROFILE with make buildworld...
> -Original Message- > From: Chuck Swiger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 21 June 2005 19:25 > To: Roland Smith > Cc: Harrison Peter CSA BIRKENHEAD; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org > Subject: Re: -DNOPROFILE with make buildworld... [snip] > Normally, you don't use the profiled versions of libraries > unless you are > running a binary which links against them. If you are > running a binary which > has not been compiled with profiling, the toolchain will link > it against normal > versions of the libraries. Most of the apps I'm running have been compiled from ports against the stock 5.3-RELEASE libraries. Are the stock libraries profiling or not? Would I have had to explicitly set an option to compile ports to link against profiling libraries? Is it therefore a reasonable assumption that if I didn't specifically make any binaries profiling, then they'll be not-profiling? > > [ ... ] > > Programs that have been compiled with profiling enabled might run > > fractionally slower that without. But I doubt the difference is > > significant on a modern machine. > > The amount of overhead seems to vary by platform, but it's > generally only a > couple of percent. Not very significant, but maybe noticable. > > The major downsides to having profiled libraries around is > that they use more > disk space than normal versions, and it takes longer to do a > buildworld, but > the runtime performance of the system for normal binaries > will not be affected. I can live with that kind of performance overhead, but disk space is more of an issue for me. > > > I'll be bold and say that modern machines are so fast that there is > > seldom need to profile a program. > > Even people who write code on fast machines may run that code > on slower boxes > sometime. However, what you've said is still true: there is > seldom need to > profile a program. Get it working well enough that it > doesn't leak memory, and > then worry about profiling it. :-) > Indeed. Once I've successfully upgraded my Athlon XP 1800+ desktop to 5.4 I'm intending to set up NFS shares and upgrade my Thinkpad 600e which is also on 5.3 (and I don't fancy building world on it's P2 366). > -- > -Chuck Thanks for the advice. Peter Harrison > > > PLEASE NOTE: THE ABOVE MESSAGE WAS RECEIVED FROM THE INTERNET. > > On entering the GSi, this email was scanned for viruses by > the Government Secure Intranet (GSi) virus scanning service > supplied exclusively by Energis in partnership with MessageLabs. > > Please see http://www.gsi.gov.uk/main/notices/information/gsi-003-2002.pdf for further details. In case of problems, please call your organisational IT helpdesk --- This document is strictly confidential and is intended only for use by the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or other action taken in reliance of the information contained in this e-mail is strictly prohibited. Any views expressed by the sender of this message are not necessarily those of the Department for Work and Pensions. If you have received this transmission in error, please use the reply function to tell us and then permanently delete what you have received. Please note: Incoming and outgoing e-mail messages are routinely monitored for compliance with our policy on the use of electronic communications. The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet (GSi) virus scanning service supplied exclusively by Energis in partnership with MessageLabs. On leaving the GSi this email was certified virus-free ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
RE: -DNOPROFILE with make buildworld...
> -Original Message- > From: Roland Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 21 June 2005 19:07 > To: Harrison Peter CSA BIRKENHEAD > Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org > Subject: Re: -DNOPROFILE with make buildworld... > > > On Tue, Jun 21, 2005 at 01:49:06PM +0100, Harrison Peter CSA > BIRKENHEAD wrote: > > > I've cvsup'ed my source tree, and stepping through the > instructions in > > the handbook I note that it recommends running make buildworld with > > -DNOPROFILE (or specifying it in make.conf). I'm not clear what the > > impact of running profiled libraries is against non-profiled > > libraries. I've done a quick search via google and through the list > > archives without success. > > It's not about profiled libraries, but profiling libraries. > Let me explain. > > Programs that are compiled with profiling enabled gather data about > their run-time behaviour, and write that to a file, usualy > gmon.out. If > the program is linked to a profiling library, data about the > time spent > running functions in that library are also recorded. > > The contents of that file can be analyzed with the gprof > program, to see > where the program spends its time. > > Now if you compile a program with not-profiling libraries, > gprof cannot > tell you much about the time your program spent in functions > in that library. OK that makes sense now I think - it's basically an optimisation tool? Thanks for the explanation. I don't imagine needing this at the moment so noprofile looks like the correct option for me. > > Programs that have been compiled with profiling enabled might run > fractionally slower that without. But I doubt the difference is > significant on a modern machine. > > I'll be bold and say that modern machines are so fast that there is > seldom need to profile a program. The machine in question is running on an Athlon XP 1800+ so it's not that fast (or modern for that matter), but I take your point. > > Roland > -- > R.F.Smith (http://www.xs4all.nl/~rsmith/) Please send e-mail > as plain text. > public key: http://www.xs4all.nl/~rsmith/pubkey.txt > Thanks again, Peter Harrison --- This document is strictly confidential and is intended only for use by the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or other action taken in reliance of the information contained in this e-mail is strictly prohibited. Any views expressed by the sender of this message are not necessarily those of the Department for Work and Pensions. If you have received this transmission in error, please use the reply function to tell us and then permanently delete what you have received. Please note: Incoming and outgoing e-mail messages are routinely monitored for compliance with our policy on the use of electronic communications. The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet (GSi) virus scanning service supplied exclusively by Energis in partnership with MessageLabs. On leaving the GSi this email was certified virus-free ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: -DNOPROFILE with make buildworld...
Roland Smith wrote: On Tue, Jun 21, 2005 at 01:49:06PM +0100, Harrison Peter CSA BIRKENHEAD wrote: I've cvsup'ed my source tree, and stepping through the instructions in the handbook I note that it recommends running make buildworld with -DNOPROFILE (or specifying it in make.conf). I'm not clear what the impact of running profiled libraries is against non-profiled libraries. I've done a quick search via google and through the list archives without success. Normally, you don't use the profiled versions of libraries unless you are running a binary which links against them. If you are running a binary which has not been compiled with profiling, the toolchain will link it against normal versions of the libraries. [ ... ] Programs that have been compiled with profiling enabled might run fractionally slower that without. But I doubt the difference is significant on a modern machine. The amount of overhead seems to vary by platform, but it's generally only a couple of percent. Not very significant, but maybe noticable. The major downsides to having profiled libraries around is that they use more disk space than normal versions, and it takes longer to do a buildworld, but the runtime performance of the system for normal binaries will not be affected. I'll be bold and say that modern machines are so fast that there is seldom need to profile a program. Even people who write code on fast machines may run that code on slower boxes sometime. However, what you've said is still true: there is seldom need to profile a program. Get it working well enough that it doesn't leak memory, and then worry about profiling it. :-) -- -Chuck ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: -DNOPROFILE with make buildworld...
On Tue, Jun 21, 2005 at 01:49:06PM +0100, Harrison Peter CSA BIRKENHEAD wrote: > I've cvsup'ed my source tree, and stepping through the instructions in > the handbook I note that it recommends running make buildworld with > -DNOPROFILE (or specifying it in make.conf). I'm not clear what the > impact of running profiled libraries is against non-profiled > libraries. I've done a quick search via google and through the list > archives without success. It's not about profiled libraries, but profiling libraries. Let me explain. Programs that are compiled with profiling enabled gather data about their run-time behaviour, and write that to a file, usualy gmon.out. If the program is linked to a profiling library, data about the time spent running functions in that library are also recorded. The contents of that file can be analyzed with the gprof program, to see where the program spends its time. Now if you compile a program with not-profiling libraries, gprof cannot tell you much about the time your program spent in functions in that library. Programs that have been compiled with profiling enabled might run fractionally slower that without. But I doubt the difference is significant on a modern machine. I'll be bold and say that modern machines are so fast that there is seldom need to profile a program. Roland -- R.F.Smith (http://www.xs4all.nl/~rsmith/) Please send e-mail as plain text. public key: http://www.xs4all.nl/~rsmith/pubkey.txt pgpS6444FQISk.pgp Description: PGP signature
-DNOPROFILE with make buildworld...
I'm currently running 5.3 (security patched via freebsd-update). I'm intending to update to 5.4 - and this is my first attempt at the buildworld etc. process. I've cvsup'ed my source tree, and stepping through the instructions in the handbook I note that it recommends running make buildworld with -DNOPROFILE (or specifying it in make.conf). I'm not clear what the impact of running profiled libraries is against non-profiled libraries. I've done a quick search via google and through the list archives without success. Could anyone explain the difference for me briefly so that I can make an informed choice? My first post to the list - although I've been lurking for a while. Apologies if the formatting on the email isn't too good. I'm mailing from work which uses Outlook 2000. Thanks for any advice. Peter Harrison --- This document is strictly confidential and is intended only for use by the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or other action taken in reliance of the information contained in this e-mail is strictly prohibited. Any views expressed by the sender of this message are not necessarily those of the Department for Work and Pensions. If you have received this transmission in error, please use the reply function to tell us and then permanently delete what you have received. Please note: Incoming and outgoing e-mail messages are routinely monitored for compliance with our policy on the use of electronic communications. The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet (GSi) virus scanning service supplied exclusively by Energis in partnership with MessageLabs. On leaving the GSi this email was certified virus-free ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
