-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 24
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Compare performance to llvm-symbolizer
#183
Comments
The problem here may be that
|
llvm-symbolizer can be launched in interactive mode, where you'll pass addresses after the process starts. I don't know if llvm-symbolizer will do any pre-processing before accepting input, though. We could time llvm-symbolizer start up separately (start interactively with no input args and send ctrl-D) and subtract that from actual llvm-symbolizer invocation |
Makes sense and would certainly be better. I'd still be a tad cautious that we are comparing apples to apples though, because we'd still have waiting-for and parsing of input in the mix as well. Don't know how much that perturbs numbers. |
FWIW, this seems to be how |
FWIW, as of 2684cfa we compare performance to
So transitively speaking we are good on this front. Wouldn't hurt to compare directly, though, so I will keep this issue open for the time being. |
We should capture some numbers on how
blazesym
compares tollvm-symbolizer
in terms of performance (symbolization time + memory usage).The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: