Mail Archives: cygwin/2010/06/04/00:58:22
On Thu, Jun 03, 2010 at 07:57:31PM -0700, Christopher Wingert wrote:
>>On Thu, Jun 03, 2010 at 05:32:46PM -0700, Christopher Wingert wrote:
>>Yeah, that's what I thought you were doing. Given that the timestamps
>>don't indicate "elapsed time of function X", it's not always possible
>>to figure out how long a function takes by subtracting. Subtracting
>>timestamps shows the delta between one time that someone thought to put
>>an strace_printf in the code and another time that someone thought to
>>put an strace_printf in the code. There is no guarantee that there is
>>an strace_printf at entry or exit of a function.
>
>Yes, except that someone instrumenting the entry/exit points was me,
>and the fact that they are not actually real syscalls and no other
>cygwin processes are running says the timestamps are accurate for the
>purposes of debugging. Further the numbers match up with the overall
>timings I did before the debugging.
Ok, if you carefully added your own debugging calls then that's a
different story. I don't see where you mentioned that anywhere until
now but, nevertheless, if you've added your own entry/exit debugging
then observation withdrawn.
>>It is a shame that we weren't more standardized in our strace output so
>>that kind of thing could be possible.
>
>Agreed (for once), the instrumentation of the syscalls and the fact that
>they are sprinkled over multiple files made things very difficult to
>debug.
It's not terribly unusual to have syscalls in different files. In fact,
it's probably unusual to have so many in one file, like we do with
Cygwin. That's another historical artifact.
>>However, for Cygwin, the web site says multiple times in multiple
>>places that you shouldn't send private email and to use the mailing
>>list. So, other projects aside that really is how we do things here.
>
>Understood. I'll wait with bated breath for a knowledgeable developer
>to speak up.
I'm glad not to contribute to your anoxia. I do qualify as a
knowledgeable developer. In fact, I'm one of the two people who would
approve/deny any patch.
Btw, if you are considering a patch, you should check out the link on
the website for what you need to do there. In a nutshell: we have a
procedure similar to the FSF except that changes need to be assigned to
Red Hat.
cgf
--
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
- Raw text -