[Top][All Lists]

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

bug#20843: 24.5; Profiler error: "Invalid sampling interval"

From: Ken Brown
Subject: bug#20843: 24.5; Profiler error: "Invalid sampling interval"
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2015 07:57:13 -0400
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0

On 6/22/2015 4:00 AM, Sebastien Vauban wrote:
Ken Brown <address@hidden> writes:
On 6/21/2015 10:56 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2015 17:47:21 -0400
From: Ken Brown <address@hidden>
CC: address@hidden, address@hidden

Then I guess the configure-time test for setitimer should also test

I'd be glad to give this a try, but I don't have any experience writing
autoconf macros.  Is there a standard macro to test whether a function
accepts a particular argument?  If not, can you (or anyone) point me to
an example that I can imitate?

Actually, perhaps I misunderstood you: are you saying that Cygwin does
have ITIMER_PROF defined in the appropriate header, but when setitimer
is called with it, it always fails?


If so, we cannot test this at
configure time, because it means we will have to run a program, which
is not a good idea.

So in that case, I think we should simply disable the CPU profiler on
Cygwin using "#ifndef __CYGWIN__" or some such.

Done as commit 5fac0de.

   Also, the diagnostics should be improved, as the
wording is misleading in that case.

As it stands, profiler-cpu-start reports "Invalid sampling interval"
whenever setup_cpu_timer fails to start the timer, regardless of the
reason.  I'll try to improve this.

Yes, please.

For me to understand, does this mean we never will be able to start the
profiler under Cygwin Emacs?

I wouldn't say "never". According to the Cygwin API documentation (https://cygwin.com/cygwin-api/std-notes.html), "getitimer and setitimer only support ITIMER_REAL for now." I'll ask on the Cygwin list about the possibility of supporting ITIMER_PROF.


reply via email to

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