Re: opreport -X patch
2006-08-01 19:14:01 GMT
John,
I'm sorry that we haven't been able to follow up on the opreport -X
discussions until now. Between vacations, and conferences both Maynard
and I have been away from the office for most of July, but are
ready to get back to these issues.
Let me summarize the issues that you raised in previous posts:
1. Why are we generating array indexes to index into the detailTable
or symbolTable instead of using a more XML-like approach of using
element ids.
We'll add the lookup id attribute to detailData and symbolData. The
XML consumer tools writers are free to ignore these and implement
symbolTable and detailTable as arrays if the tree lookup performance
is really bad.
2. Our syntax for collecting together sample count data for
multiple CPUs into a single comma separated list: count=",,12,34,,56"
is weird.
Actually the full encoding of counts should have also included
syntax for events and masks. For example,
(cpu0_count:cpu1_count:..cpuN_count:1, ..., cpu0_count:...cpuN_count):mM
mask------------------------------------------------------------------^
event0 ... eventE
An instance might look like: (4 CPUs, 3 events, 2 masks)
count="(1::3:,:::,:4:5:):m3, (:::,:2::,4::5:):m5"
Your response to this is that it is too weird and I think you suggested
(Continue reading)
RSS Feed