Re: profiling

• Date: Sun, 4 Aug 1996 14:45:56 PDT
• From:
  <thomas@xs4all.nl>
• Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
• In-Reply-To: <199608021939.PAA07222@mole.research.att.com>

On Fri, 2 Aug 1996, Erik Ostrom wrote:

> > Would it break down the output from other verbs called by this verb? 
> > In my in-db parser, I'd really like to profile a call to do_command 
> > and get the complete picture of where my ticks are going.  But where 
> > the ticks are going may be several function calls deep. 
> 
> Yes; my plan was that you would get a summary of information from the
> call tree whose root is in the verb the profile statement is in--in your
> case, do_command, every verb it calls, every verb those call, and so on.
> (Unreadable verbs would be "black boxes", but if you're a wizard, that's
> not an issue.)

Question: When the 'profiled' block enters an unreadable verb (a black
box) which calls a caller-perms owned verb, would that be recorded into
the profiling data (a hole in the black box) ?  It makes sense, as you can
find out whether a -r verb calls on of your own verbs one way or another,
but I do not know if that would be easy to implement.

On the same note, would readable verbs /not/ owned by caller-perms, but
called on an /object/ that is owned by caller-perms, be included ? In
other words:  verbs that are readable but not caller-perms-owned, but
/could/ be caller-perms-owned if the caller-perms would take the
trouble... Again, it makes sense, and it would be very nifty for the
'mere' programmer, and for the wizzes too -- i can see the database bloat
right now when the profile-mania starts... Everyone adding if's to find
profile conditions and reporting the entire caller-perms just to find out
what happens inside the 'black boxes' :-) The MetroMOO has some
programmers that would do that, trust me :-P

Thomas.

• Re: profiling
• From: Erik Ostrom <eostrom@research.att.com>

• Prev: Re: profiling
• Next: raise()
• Index: MOO-cows
• Thread: MOO-cows