GNU bug report logs - #30491
26.0; (elisp) `Profiling'

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: help-debbugs <at> gnu.org (GNU bug Tracking System)
To: Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se>
Cc: tracker <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#30491: closed (26.0; (elisp) `Profiling')
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2021 17:02:02 +0000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Your message dated Sat, 23 Oct 2021 10:01:39 -0700
with message-id <CADwFkmmR3CdQfZyneM9afOXAE-SKp0cffsieiNyY_UQjc06BtQ <at> mail.gmail.com>
and subject line Re: bug#30491: 26.0; (elisp) `Profiling'
has caused the debbugs.gnu.org bug report #30491,
regarding 26.0; (elisp) `Profiling'
to be marked as done.

(If you believe you have received this mail in error, please contact
help-debbugs <at> gnu.org.)


-- 
30491: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=30491
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact help-debbugs <at> gnu.org with problems

[Message part 2 (message/rfc822, inline)]

From: Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
To: bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
Subject: 26.0; (elisp) `Profiling'
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2018 10:11:59 -0800 (PST)

1. "how much resource" is not good English.  How much of a given
   resource or how many resources, not how much resource.  "Resource" is
   a countable noun.

2. "See the functions 'benchmark-run' and 'benchmark-run-compiled'".
   Those are macros, not functions.  And it should probably mention
   command `benchmark'.

3. The node should say something about library `elp', or it should not
   mention it.  The approach should be similar to what is said about
   library `benchmark.el', at a minimum.

4. A simple example of using the profiler commands would be welcome.


In GNU Emacs 26.0.91 (build 1, x86_64-w64-mingw32)
 of 2018-01-22
Repository revision: 752fba992b793a74d202c9cfc3e1a92fd458e748
Windowing system distributor `Microsoft Corp.', version 6.1.7601
Configured using:
 `configure --without-dbus --host=x86_64-w64-mingw32
 --without-compress-install 'CFLAGS=-O2 -static -g3''

[Message part 3 (message/rfc822, inline)]

From: Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 30491-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
Subject: Re: bug#30491: 26.0; (elisp) `Profiling'
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2021 10:01:39 -0700

Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:

>> > > Also, some brief comparison of profile, elp, and benchmark could be
>> > helpful: what are their particular purposes, strengths, etc.
>> >
>> > I think this was already clear from the text: e.g., benchmark only
>> > measures the total execution time of a form, it doesn't produce any
>> > insights on the distribution of that time between the form's
>> > components.  I added more text to make some differences more clear.
>>
>> This post makes a start, but it doesn't mention elp.
>> Perhaps the text you've added (I've not seen it yet)
>> already makes a similar brief comparison.
>>
>> https://emacs.stackexchange.com/a/540/105
>
> I think this is covered now.

From reading this thread, it seems like the documentation issues here
have been fixed.  There were also some tangents, but separate bug
reports were filed for those.  So it doesn't seem like there's nothing
more to do here, and I'm closing this bug.

As always, please report back if there's something I missed.  Please
open new bug reports for any remaining issues that are not related to
the documentation changes discussed here.  Thanks in advance.

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.