Re: Too many PMC implementations

To: tech-kern%NetBSD.org@localhost
Subject: Re: Too many PMC implementations
From: Mouse <mouse%Rodents-Montreal.ORG@localhost>
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2018 10:50:32 -0400 (EDT)

>> I agree that it would be better to retire gprof in base, because
>> there are more powerful tools now, and also advanced hardware
>> support (PMC, PEBS, ProcessorTrace).

...for ports that _have_ "advanced hardware support", maybe.  (And what
are the "more powerful tools"?  I haven't been following the state of
the art in open-source profiling tools.)

/~\ The ASCII				  Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
 X  Against HTML		mouse%rodents-montreal.org@localhost
/ \ Email!	     7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39  4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B

References:
- Too many PMC implementations
  - From: Maxime Villard
- Re: Too many PMC implementations
  - From: Maxime Villard
- Re: Too many PMC implementations
  - From: Maxime Villard

Prev by Date: Re: Too many PMC implementations
Next by Date: Re: Too many PMC implementations
Previous by Thread: Re: Too many PMC implementations
Next by Thread: Re: Too many PMC implementations
Indexes:

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index