|Instrumenting code for profiling. firstname.lastname@example.org (2004-11-14)|
|Re: Instrumenting code for profiling. email@example.com (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2004-11-17)|
|Re: Instrumenting code for profiling. firstname.lastname@example.org (2004-11-17)|
|Re: Instrumenting code for profiling. email@example.com (2004-11-19)|
|Re: Instrumenting code for profiling. firstname.lastname@example.org (2004-11-20)|
|Re: Instrumenting code for profiling. email@example.com (Ira Baxter) (2004-11-20)|
|Re: Instrumenting code for profiling. firstname.lastname@example.org (2004-11-20)|
|Re: Instrumenting code for profiling. email@example.com (2004-11-26)|
|From:||glen herrmannsfeldt <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
|Date:||17 Nov 2004 11:31:05 -0500|
|Posted-Date:||17 Nov 2004 11:31:05 EST|
> I had a question regarding how compilers do instrumentation to
> collect profile information. Specifically, how do compilers handle the
> part of mapping the collected profile back to the original program
> (which is without the instrumentation).
Not long after I started learning Fortran (a long time ago by now), I
found a program called FETE. Actually, it was a cataloged procedure
on an IBM system, which would run the FETE program and then the
FETE would read in a Fortran 66 program and then write out a new
Fortran program that would count the number of times each statement
was executed. For logical IF statements, it would separately count
the number of times the condition was true. At the end it would then
print out the source program with execution counts, approximate times,
and number of times an IF was true. The normal compiler source output
was turned off, so the only source listing you saw was that generated
by the executing program.
Not so long ago I tried to trace down FETE, but it seems that
it doesn't exist anymore.
Presumably a similar system could be done for other languages.
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.