> I would try even the "buggy" oldest one , then by doxygen I will make
> a comparison between the old and newest version of octave.
> I would like to try anyway, but I need the whole patch, and to know
> the version of octave synchronized with this.
> Thanks a lot
> --- *Ven 8/1/10, John W. Eaton /<[hidden email]>/* ha scritto:
> Da: John W. Eaton <[hidden email]>
> Oggetto: Octave Profiler experimental version
> A: "Riccardo Corradini" <[hidden email]>
> Cc: [hidden email], [hidden email] > Data: Venerdì 8 gennaio 2010, 13:45
> On 8-Jan-2010, Riccardo Corradini wrote:
> | In Octave 's FAQ there is written:
> | "Profiler Octave doesn’t have a profiler. Though there is a
> patch for a flat profiler, that
> | might become a real profiler sometime in the future. see the thread
> http://www.cae.wisc.edu/pipermail/octave-maintainers/2007-January/001685.html > | for more details".
> | Is it all right if I ask you how to apply a working patch for a
> profiler to current development version 3.3.50+ ?. Could you
> please post it again to the list?
> | Thanks a lot for all your help and patience concerning this issue.
> The interpreter has changed significantly since that patch was
> posted so I think it would take a quite a bit of work to make it work
> with the current sources.
I think you would have to revert your hg checkout of Octave to version
as of Jan 2007
and add in all the changes at that point. I dont think it is a wise
idea, but if youre
desperate to use a profiler on your code without the tic/toc strategy
then go for it.
However, I think Octave project would benefit from a profiler written
using the tree-walker
evaluator class, instead of the ugly patches contained in the 2007
postings. I think there
is a new tree-walking evaluator in the octave tree, but I am not sure.
Thanks JWE & all, for the great work on GNU Octave with new releases