@kas1e

Here's a simple example that demonstrates the failure to produce source file name and line number information. Save it as "SymbolFail.c".


Build it with this makefile:



When run, it displays:

Base name: SymbolFail
Function name: main
No source file name!
No source line number!

@IamSONIC

You've got the same large differences in printf() speed as I see on my system, so the X5000 doesn't seem to make a difference there.

From your tests- Average time for MyPrintf() in original MultiThread example:

Launched from shell = 0.277 ms
Launched from shell via Run = 1.972 ms
Launched from Workbench = 86.481 ms

I can see why launching from the shell would be the fastest, as the program can use the shell's I/O streams. 'Run'ing the program also uses the shell's I/O streams, but since they're shared with the shell and potentially with other programs I imagine there's some resource locking involved which would slow things down some. But why Workbench takes so long to write to the console window it opens is a puzzler.

Not counting printf(), there doesn't seem to be any significant difference in speed between the GCC 8.3.0 and 11.1.0 versions of the test programs. The GCC 11 code may be a tiny bit faster, but nothing notable. So the difference in speed relative to my tests seems to be entirely due to the X5000.

Would it be possible to run the 'Simple' test program? I'd like to see how the two null functions perform for both versions of the compiler. No need to run the program in all the different ways, since the null functions don't print anything and so won't vary depending on the launch method.

Quote:
Oops! You're right- I totally missed putting that into the archive. Something to fix in the next release.

@trixie

One of my genetic defects is that I believe in well documented software, and in fact enjoy writing documentation. The down side is that it takes me longer to produce something, since all that writing takes additional time.

Documentation is kind of an iterative process; as I'm writing about how to use the program I sometimes come across some awkwardness in the operation that I might not notice when using the program myself, but that becomes obvious when I have to explain it to someone else. Then I have to go back and fix it in the code. In the case of a technical tool like Profyler I also have to make sure I know what I'm talking about when I explain the technical details, which involves additional research and testing.

@kas1e

I've seen the location information sometimes in the GR window, but I thought maybe it did its own parsing of the debug data using elf.library, rather
than using ObtainDebugSymbol().

As you can see in the makefile for the test programs, I do use -gstabs in the compiler arguments. I didn't think I needed to add it to the linker
arguments as well, but I just gave that a try. It didn't make any difference; still no location data.

I'll see if I can come up with a simple, stand-alone program that displays the problem.

@IamSONIC

I know the X5000 is faster, but I didn't think it was almost twice as fast. And indeed, the MIPS and DMIPS numbers you quote suggest that it's
30% to 50% faster. Yet comparing your profile numbers to those on my X1000 (with the test programs in my case compiled with GCC 8.3.0)
shows that your numbers are almost twice as fast.

(Note that you can't readily compare anything that calls printf(), since the speed of writing to a console window depends greatly on how the test
program was run, which you didn't indicate. You get one set of numbers if you run it by typing its name in a shell, a different set if you type 'run'
and then the program's name in the shell, and a third set if you run it from Workbench by double-clicking it. So when comparing I concentrated
on the "average exclusive" times, which don't count calls to MyPrintf().)

That leaves GCC as the unknown quantity. I haven't installed GCC 11 yet, so I can't try it to see what difference I get. Maybe you could try
running the test programs as provided with Profyler, which are compiled with GCC 8.3.0, and comparing those results to the ones you get when
they're compiled with GCC 11.1.0.

Thanks everyone, for the welcome.

@afxgroup

Not back, really; I've been here all along (just not posting to forums). I wrote my first Amiga program in AmigaBasic on my A1000
(with no hard drive) back in the late 80s, and uploaded it to CompuServe's Amiga forums via a 2400 baud modem. I've been writing
Amiga programs ever since.

@walkero

Yes, you've mentioned PassPocket in your emails. I'll likely have some noob questions of my own, when it comes to using the
forum here.

Naturally, I used PassPocket as a test subject for Profyler (if you look closely at the source for the latest version you'll see the
profiling macros in there).

@IamSONIC

Glad it works for you, and with a much newer version of GCC. I can only do so much testing on my one OS4 system, so I'll have
to depend on the folks here to test it more widely.

I notice you've got some execution times down in the 500 - 600 ns range. The fastest I've ever seen on my X1000 is around 1 us.
I don't know if the difference is due to the X5000 (is it that much faster?), or perhaps the newer version of GCC is more efficient at
function calls. Interesting.

@kas1e

It was hard to keep quiet during all the past discussions here about OS4 profilers (that's where I heard about Tequila), but I hate to
pre-announce stuff as then I feel like I'm under pressure to get it done. Better to sneak up on people.

I've actually been working on Profyler for a year and a half, though there were a number of times where I took a month or two off to
work on other projects (both Amiga-related and not).

Regarding ObtainDebugSymbol: I suspect it's more of an unimplemented feature than an actual bug. The DebugSymbol struct it
returns has fields for SourceFileName and SourceLineNumber, but there's never anything in them. Perhaps they planned to add
that in the future and never got around to it.

You can turn the Location column on using the list browser's pop-up menu; it might be worth checking on some other Amiga
systems/kernels to see if the location information is missing on them as well.

Hello, everyone! I've been lurking here for years, as there seems to be a
high proportion of OS4 programmers here, and the signal to noise ratio is
much higher than some other Amiga forums. I've finally gotten around to
joining. The occasion that pushed me over the line is the release of my
latest project, Profyler (in the upload queue at OS4Depot and Aminet).

There have been a number of discussions about profilers for OS4 here in
the past, including the current one about getting gprof to work, so there
seems to be some interest in the subject. Inspired by that and by my use
of the SAS/C sprof and GUIprof profilers in the past, I've created Profyler
to provide a similar capability for OS4 programmers (with, thanks to MUI,
a nicer user interface).

I won't go into all the features (and limitations) here, as you can check
out the ReadMe to get all the details. Profyler is not going to be the one
profiler to rule them all, as it has some significant limitations. But it's
one more tool in the OS4 programmer's toolbox, one I hope is useful.

Feedback is welcomed...