Re: [boost] Re: Re: Re: Boost Profiler Proposal

From: Rob Stewart (stewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-02-08 16:56:36

From: christopher diggins <cdiggins_at_[hidden]>
> From: "Gennadiy Rozental" <gennadiy.rozental_at_[hidden]>
> >
> > {
> > profiler p;
> > // some code
> > p.stop();

I'd expect that to be called "pause" not "stop."  The latter
sounds more like it would report and reset the timer so that a
subsequent call to start() would be starting from zero.

> > // some other code we do not want to profile
> > p.resume();

"continue" might be a better name.

> > // continue profiling
> > p.stop()

Not needed unless there were following code you didn't want to
time, right?

> > } // here we print report
> >
> > I expect report to be print only once
> 
> stop() and resume() are not part of the design.

He's suggesting that they should be.

> You would write the above code as:
> 
> {
>   {
>     basic_profiler<collecting_policy> p("profile1");
>     // some code
>   }
>   // some other code we do not want to profile
>   {
>     basic_profiler<collecting_policy> p("profile1");
>     // continue profiling
>   }
>   collecting_policy::generate_report();
>   }
> }

Maybe you would, but I think that makes the profiler class too
painful.

Gennadiy's version is much simpler to read and write, and it
doesn't assume that collecting_policy references a common object
that will collect statistics for all basic_profilers that mention
"profile1."  The latter means that a name doesn't need to be
repeated, which could be a source of errors, and it simplifies
the profiler class' implementation.

-- 
Rob Stewart                           stewart_at_[hidden]
Software Engineer                     http://www.sig.com
Susquehanna International Group, LLP  using std::disclaimer;