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

Bug#281571: ITP: q-tools -- collection of ia64 performance analysis tools



On Wed, 2004-11-17 at 00:01 +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 16, 2004 at 11:40:51AM -0700, Al Stone wrote:
> > 
> >   qprof
> >      An easy-to-install and use flat profiler which supports
> >      multi-threaded applications and shared libraries. This tool
> >      works on many Linux platforms and can be installed by ordinary
> >      users. See the qprof web-site for more info and for separate
> >      download instructions.
> 
> Don't you already have qprof in the archive?  Are you just going
> to provide the same binary package but from a different source
> package?

Doh.  I cut and paste a little too much text.  Yes, there is
already a qprof but it is (and should continue to be) a separate
package; it is _not_ part of q-tools.

> >   q-dot
> >      Displays a call-graph in graphical form. Requires Guile and the
> >      dot tool from AT&T research labs.
> 
> Meaning it's going to go to contrib?

I'll put it in contrib for now, but it's not clear that
this package _must_ go in contrib.  You can run the tools
without the dot tool but the results are not terribly 
useful; i.e., you do not have to have graphviz (or
something similar) installed to get the data normally
needed to run the dot tool but you do need the dot tool
to create a nice Postscript file so you can display
your results.

More accurately, the description should have been:

   q-dot
      Create the data needed so that the AT&T dot tool can
      be used to display a call-graph in graphical form.

-- 
Ciao,
al
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Al Stone                                      Alter Ego:
Linux & Open Source Lab                       Debian Developer
Hewlett-Packard Company                       http://www.debian.org
E-mail: ahs3@fc.hp.com                        ahs3@debian.org
----------------------------------------------------------------------




Reply to: