help-gplusplus
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: g++ and library optimisations


From: pemo
Subject: Re: g++ and library optimisations
Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 16:23:48 +0100

Dave Steffen wrote:
> pemo <peet.morris@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On May 13, 4:34 pm, Paul Pluzhnikov <ppluzhnikov-...@charter.net>
>> [...]
>>
>> Could you clarify it's neither a .h/.cpp?  The source code behind the
>> vector template has to be compiled, and thus found.  Intuitively, I
>> would expect this be be in some include path, i.e., as vector is
>> included in her source, the template boiler plate has also to be
>> 'included' somehow.  This seems *not* to be the case however, so I'm
>> curious as to how the code 'arrives' for compilation.
>
>  The code is there, almost certainly in a file called "vector" (no .h
>  or .cpp suffix).  That file almost certainly #includes some others
>  that you'll want to look at.  But again, it's not compiled into a
>  library, because templates don't work that way.
>
>> Ok, but can you say whether after doing this [away from her machine
>> at the mo] whether gprof requires some explicit input, e.g. gprof
>> a.out?
>
>  To use gprof, compile with the right flags (-pg IIRC) and just run
>  the thing.  It produces an output file, which you then feed to the
>  gprof program.  Further instructions can be found on line.
>
>  A further note: gprof output isn't particularly easy to work with,
>  especially in C++ code.  VTune is probably more useful.  Also, for
>  Linux systems, check out Valgrind (specifically the callgrind and
>  cachegrind tools) and KCacheGrind, a KDE app that IMHO puts VTune to
>  shame.

Many thanks to you both. 




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]