BBC BASIC for Windows: PROFILER UTILITY

BBC BASIC for Windows
IDE and Compiler >> Integrated Development Environment >> PROFILER UTILITY
http://bb4w.conforums.com/index.cgi?board=ide&action=display&num=1241010025

PROFILER UTILITY
Post by Michael Hutton on Apr 29^th, 2009, 1:00pm

Hi all,

I am please to announce PROFILER ~~v2.2b~~ v3.0d

Utility which is available for download here;

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bb4w/files/Tools/Add_Ins/Profiler%20Utility%20Installer%20v3.0d.exe

Profiler Utility v4.0b (beta) is also available here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bb4w/files/Tools/Add_Ins/Profiler%20Utility%20Installer%20v4.0b.exe

I would be grateful if you could post any comments or criticisms here in this thread so they are all in one place. I have not made any help documentation because I think it is fairly self explanatory but could do if there is a call for it. I am also aware of a few 'style' issues which may or may not please everyone but please do comment if there is any feature you like, or particularly dislike!

I would like to keep developing this utility so all comments are welcome.

Lastly, I do not think there are any major bugs, the big issues being ironed out in development but please report anything you may suspect.

Michael

Re: PROFILER UTILITY
Post by David Williams on Apr 29^th, 2009, 10:38pm

It seems to be working well so far, having tried it with a few programs. I found that when installing I had to create a new folder within the BBC BASIC for Windows folder called UTILITIES; hardly a chore to be sure, but perhaps the next version of PROFILER could, if it detects that the required folder doesn't exist, create it automatically?

Anyway, a useful and conveniently accessible utility building on the Richard's original proggy. It is certainly one I will use myself (I've used Richard's original version a few times already).

An idea: (I haven't thought this through, so feel free to dismiss it out of hand!)... sometimes one may not want to profile the whole program, but rather a specific loop or the main program loop, or whathaveyou. So, perhaps a later version of PROFILER could hold off profiling until it encounters a directive such as:

REM!PROFILERGO

(or something like that?).

Good work Michael, as usual.

David.

Re: PROFILER UTILITY
Post by Michael Hutton on Apr 30^th, 2009, 02:08am

Thanks David,

The directory issue is an obvious bug which Knud has also reported. Thanks. I had always worked with a already created folder, which I just hadn't realised. I will correct that this week. Typical.

I had thought of just profiling sections of code. I don't think that actually should be too much of a problem. However, my concerns, and I don't know if they a real or not, is that I don't want the TimerProc to become too unwieldy. It is called every millisecond and I am presuming the shorter the better. I look into this feature.

Richard has also pointed out that my testing of the 'immediate mode' is probably working by sheer chance rather than any concrete evidence. He has supplied me with a way of testing it which I will incorporate.

Thank you for taking the time and testing it. The directory issue is a bit embarrassing but typical of me.

There are of course other issues which I am working on. I am looking at trying to reliably detect when the program is waiting for input from the user in a GET or INKEY statement so when the close is pressed it will exit wihout the user having to press ENTER.

Knud has also reported a Division by Zero error which I will track down aswell.

Look forward to version 2.2c soon!

Michael

Re: PROFILER UTILITY
Post by Michael Hutton on May 1^st, 2009, 05:58am

For those of you who have tried using PROFILER v2.2b and are having problems with a installing it to a new directory. The problem lies with trying to create a subdirectory of a directory which doesn't exist.

I had used *MKDIR (OSCLI) but this will fail if an intermediate directory in the path doesn't already exist.

*MKDIR seems to map directly to SYS"CreateDirectory"

I will fix this problem.

Michael

Re: PROFILER UTILITY
Post by admin on May 1^st, 2009, 09:11am

Quote:

I had used *MKDIR (OSCLI) but this will fail if an intermediate directory in the path doesn't already exist.

You should probably use SYS "SHFileOperation" for this kind of thing, because it can automatically create the directory tree required to store a file. What you definitely should not be doing is to call MKDIR repeatedly to create the tree; let Windows do the hard work for you!

Richard.

Re: PROFILER UTILITY
Post by Michael Hutton on May 2^nd, 2009, 11:47am

I have corrected the directory installation bug. I have called it version 2.2c although the actual profiler itself is the same. You can download it from the same link (in the first message).

In fact I had done precisely what you recommended not doing and went and created a function to solve the problem with *MKDIR but I have now scrubbed that and use SHFileOperation. I had used it before but had completely forgotten about it. rolleyes

Hope this is a bit better.

Michael

Re: PROFILER UTILITY
Post by David Williams on May 2^nd, 2009, 10:32pm

Michael,

Hmm... was thinking... if you have the time and inclination, -- if you think it's worthwhile -- then perhaps Richard's tokenized .BBC file to HTML file converter could be implemented as an IDE utility? (Admittedly, I've probably used that bbc2html program more than anyone else.)

Regards,

David.

Re: PROFILER UTILITY
Post by Michael Hutton on May 7^th, 2009, 10:06am

David,

It would probably be quite easy to do but as you may have seen I've been getting bogged down in sorting out bugs in Profiler which have come to light...

I will definitely have a look at doing it for you. It would probably be good to ignore Profiler for a week and then get back to it later...

Michael

Re: PROFILER UTILITY
Post by Michael Hutton on May 7^th, 2009, 10:51am

Ah! And now I know how to indent the report in Profiler! It's all in BBCtoHTML. Hah!

Michael

Re: PROFILER UTILITY
Post by admin on May 7^th, 2009, 2:37pm

Quote:

perhaps Richard's tokenized .BBC file to HTML file converter could be implemented as an IDE utility?

I don't want to be a wet blanket here, but I feel I should point out that adapting BBC2HTML.BBC, not being one of the supplied example programs, would require my permission. You can't just go and take a program I have written, the IPR/Copyright of which is owned by me, and turn it into an add-in utility without seeking my approval!

Richard.

Re: PROFILER UTILITY
Post by David Williams on May 7^th, 2009, 3:25pm

on May 7^th, 2009, 2:37pm, Richard Russell wrote:

Sorry, it was rather presumptuous of me!

Re: PROFILER UTILITY
Post by Michael Hutton on May 22^nd, 2009, 11:23am

Hi all,

You can run the installer by clicking on this link and choosing RUN.

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/bb4w/files/Tools/Add_Ins/Profiler%20Utility%20Installer.exe

For those of you who are aware of the previous versions potentially lethal bug
this has been fixed by using an updated version of the bbwrun.exe provided by
Richard. So, DO NOT BE AFRAID!

To use profiler just select the item from the Utilities menu. You should see a
dialogue box appear with a few options. In brief:

Autoclose : Enter a timeout value for the profiling to exit. A value of 0
indicates that there is no timeout value and the program will profile
indefinitely...see 'exit conditions' below.

Do not time INPUT statements : Profiler will ignore INPUT statements and not
time them when profiling.

Profiler will automatically stop the profiling and show you a report when:

1. The timeout limit has been reached.
2. An END or QUIT statement has been encountered. (a STOP will bail to immediate
mode see 3)
3. When immediate mode is detected.
4. The user clicks on the close button in the window (if your using full screen
use Alt-f4).

I haven't encountered a situation where this version will not exit in immediate
mode but if anyone does find this or it seems 'stuck' when an INPUT statemant,
click the close button and then press ENTER. This is similar behaviour to the
original profiler.

The profile report will be shown in your default text editor. The file will not
be saved unless you do so manually. (it is created in the temp directory.)

There have been other minor bug fixes including the 'Division by zero' error
encountered when the program was so small that no time was registered by
Profiler.

I have noticed that *rarely* profiler will not show a report when the program
being profiled is deep within a machine code procedure (I think). I think this
is due to so many WM_QUIT messages being sent that it will close itself before
it's had time to compile the report and show it! As the first thing Profiler
does is stop the timer when it has encountered a stop condition I haven't really
worked out a way of stopping this behaviour yet. Although I could stop it within
the timer itself...<will go away and do this....>. However, I think it is
satisfactory for 99.9% of situations.

Also the installer might not recongise previous versions (you shouldn't have
them anyway!) but just select the same slot if this does occur.

As per usual please report any bugs or irritations.

Enjoy profiling! I hope it helps to speed up your code.

Michael

Re: PROFILER UTILITY
Post by admin on May 27^th, 2009, 2:47pm

Quote:

As per usual please report any bugs or irritations.

If I try to install your latest Profiler Utility I get this message in a box entitled 'Access Denied':

"Sorry, you are not allowed to write to this folder. You will have to change your access rights to this folder then run this installer again".

Unfortunately, it doesn't tell me which folder I need to change the access rights to (nor why, since I wouldn't be expecting it to write to a folder that doesn't have write access).

Also, for your information, the message box was displayed behind other windows - only the 'bong' alerted me to a problem. You should perhaps check that you have set the 'parent window' of the box correctly. Or maybe consider setting the MB_TOPMOST flag.

Richard.

Re: PROFILER UTILITY
Post by Michael Hutton on Jun 2^nd, 2009, 10:26am

The 'Access Denied' Updating bug has been fixed for those of you who would like to try Profiler.

Also, I would recommend using the Install/Remove/Update tool to remove Profiler. If you just delete the files you will leave the registry entries behind which could confuse any further attempts to upgrade etc.

Michael

Re: PROFILER UTILITY
Post by admin on Jun 2^nd, 2009, 1:49pm

Quote:

Also, I would recommend using the Install/Remove/Update tool to remove Profiler.

Can you confirm that it's equally acceptable to use the Remove option in Malcolm's Utilities Manager? I think it's most important that utilities from different vendors properly coöperate.

By the time the average user decides they want to remove your utility (possibly a long time after they first installed it) they're unlikely to remember that they're supposed to use a particular software tool to do it. Even if they do, they've got to remember what it's called and where they stored it (and if, like me, they run it directly from the Yahoo group's Files area it won't be on their PC anyway).

If for some reason you cannot make your utility compatible with Utilities Manager (which seems unlikely) a less desirable alternative would be to put an entry in the Add or Remove Programs list in Control Panel so it can be removed in the same way as other Windows applications.

Richard.

Re: PROFILER UTILITY
Post by Michael Hutton on Jun 5^th, 2009, 08:12am

I'll look into this when I get back to Oz. I agree that it would better to make it compatible.

Michael

Re: PROFILER UTILITY
Post by admin on Jun 5^th, 2009, 09:26am

Quote:

I'll look into this when I get back to Oz. I agree that it would better to make it compatible.

You might like to look at how my recently-released Macro Recorder utility behaves in this respect. It has two features in particular that help compatibility with Malcolm's utility:

Firstly, it always uses the presence (or otherwise) of its name in the 'utilities list' (in the registry) as the primary test of whether it has previously been installed. Therefore it will never think it's already installed if the user has managed to delete it from this list (by any means), or think it isn't installed when it's in the list.

Secondly, it will install correctly even if its files and/or registry entries are missing or inconsistent. It always presents the option to install afresh at any slot number, even if it believes it is already installed. Therefore whatever the previous condition the user can decide to re-install it in its existing slot (i.e. upgrade), move it to a new slot or remove it entirely (the 'remove' option is only enabled if it is found in the existing list).

Second-guessing the user, by presenting only a subset of options depending on what the installer (unreliably) believes is the existing condition (e.g. offering only 'remove' if thinks it is already installed) is poor practice and liable to result in a high degree of user frustration!

Richard.

Re: PROFILER UTILITY
Post by flamerz on May 1^st, 2013, 2:17pm

I have installed BBC 5.94a and Profiler 3.0d.

When I have some code and start the profiler, it starts with a "Mistake", and i have to write "Run" manually.

I'm doing something wrong?

Currently using windows 7.

The link for the v4 beta is missing.

update: this only happens when i use the "lowercase keywords" option.

Re: PROFILER UTILITY
Post by admin on May 2^nd, 2013, 08:15am

on May 1^st, 2013, 2:17pm, flamerz wrote:

When I have some code and start the profiler, it starts with a "Mistake", and i have to write "Run" manually.

I'm doing something wrong?

I don't know whether Michael Hutton (the author of the profiler utility) is monitoring this forum any more. Unfortunately he has never released the source code, so really he is the only person who can comment on your problem.

I know from experience that it's easy to forget to test utilities with the Lowercase Keywords option enabled, so it may be that is what has happened.

Richard.

Re: PROFILER UTILITY
Post by Michael Hutton on May 4^th, 2013, 12:11pm

on May 2^nd, 2013, 08:15am, Richard Russell wrote:

I don't know whether Michael Hutton (the author of the profiler utility) is monitoring this forum any more.

I get some emails about certain topics, but I don't regularly scan the board anymore.

Quote:

When I have some code and start the profiler, it starts with a "Mistake", and i have to write "Run" manually.

I'm doing something wrong?

Yes. Using lowercase keywords.

No, but seriously you have found a bug which had never cropped up during testing and I had never tested for, or even, thought about.

When you run the profiler utility it runs a separate .exe which is passed the window handle of the requesting IDE. The program is then tokenized line by line by sending the exe each line via the window messages and saved as a temporary *tokenized* program and then reloaded back into the memory of the profiler and then run in that environment.

The problem lies in the tokenization of the program.

Code:

 1190   Dummy% = EVAL("0:"+$$(buffer%+5))
 1200   Line$ = $(!332+2)

the EVAL statement won't recognise the keywords as it stands unless I explicitly state that they are lowercase.

I don't know if I can test the IDE from another program to see if bit 3 of ?419 is set (*LOWERCASE ON) but I will mess around and see if I can do it.

I expect it cannot be done so it might just be the case that you can only profile a program in the IDE which is not in lowercase.

Sorry about that.

Quote:

Unfortunately he has never released the source code..

I have always been willing but I remember at the time there was some concern about some of the code in which all the utilities use. Is that still a concern? I know you Richard have seen the code and may still have a copy of it lying around but I don't know.

Is there any objection to me posting it?

Michael

Re: PROFILER UTILITY
Post by admin on May 4^th, 2013, 9:48pm

on May 4^th, 2013, 12:11pm, Michael Hutton wrote:

I don't know if I can test the IDE from another program to see if bit 3 of ?419 is set

Other utilities which need to know the 'lowercase keywords' setting (the Cross Reference utility is one) simply look in the registry to find it:

Code:

      key$ = "Software\R T Russell\BBC BASIC for Windows\Settings"
      IF FNreadregistrybin(HKEY_CURRENT_USER, key$, "Lowercase", ^Lowercase%, 4)
      IF Lowercase% THEN *lowercase on

Quote:

there was some concern about some of the code in which all the utilities use. Is that still a concern?

Looking back through this thread the concern seemed to be about compatibility with Malcolm's 'My Utilities' manager, in particular that the profiler is happy to be removed (without confusing a subsequent re-installation) and moved from one slot to another using that tool. So long as that is the case I can't see there being a problem.

Incidentally I vaguely remember an issue (possibly with an older version) related to the profiler using its own copy of the run-time engine, which if an older version than the one being used by the IDE can result in all sorts of strange symptoms, because profiling the program means effectively running it with an old version of BB4W! Is that fixed?

Oh, and the profiler utility doesn't seem to work at all on 64-bit Windows! That's obviously a very serious problem, given that almost every PC bought today will be running Win64, so it ought to be a high priority for being fixed if you're doing any work.

Quote:

I know you Richard have seen the code and may still have a copy of it lying around but I don't know.

No, I've never seen the code; if you ever gave me a copy, and I don't think you did, I've long since lost it. That was my main concern really; I wouldn't necessarily expect you to publish the source - I don't do that for any of my utilities - but it is the only one of the utilities distributed with BB4W that I have no way of maintaining.

Richard.

Re: PROFILER UTILITY
Post by Michael Hutton on May 5^th, 2013, 2:44pm

No, it doesn't use it's own run time engine anymore. It is compiled with the latest, or is it, hmm. how would I know? Anyway, I am sure it is not the special version of the runtime engine which was required because of some nasty tricks like flushing the @lib$ and @dir$ buffers could lead to whole folders being deleted for some reason. However this is now *not\8 an issue.

So you can find out the lowercase keywords via the registry.

I am will upload the code to the yahoo groups so that it could be updated by anyone who wishes. I don't think I would add to it anymore, except for the lowercase keywords stuff.

Michael

Re: PROFILER UTILITY
Post by Michael Hutton on May 5^th, 2013, 2:59pm

I have never had a problem with the 64 bit windows. What do you experience?

Michael

Re: PROFILER UTILITY
Post by Michael Hutton on May 5^th, 2013, 4:19pm

Can I "borrow" the FNreadregistrybin function please?

Michael

Re: PROFILER UTILITY
Post by admin on May 5^th, 2013, 9:38pm

on May 5^th, 2013, 2:44pm, Michael Hutton wrote:

No, it doesn't use it's own run time engine anymore. It is compiled with the latest, or is it, hmm. how would I know?

I'm not sure that you fully understood the question. The point is that it should not matter whether or not the profiler utility was compiled with the latest run-time engine. It would obviously be highly undesirable to have to re-compile the utility every time a new version of BB4W was released, not to say impossible if the source code isn't available!

The original PROFILER.BBC (in EXAMPLES\TOOLS) doesn't have this problem, because it necessarily runs the user's program using the latest version (efectively it CHAINS the program). But as soon as you turn it into an add-in utility (which runs as a separate process) it become non-trivial to arrange to run the program using the latest version rather than the run-time engine embedded in the EXE.

The only way I can think of to do it is to find the BB4W installation folder from the registry, and then execute the program using the BBCWRUN.EXE to be found there. Is that how the profiler utility currently works?

Quote:

I have never had a problem with the 64 bit windows. What do you experience?

On 64-bits Windows 8, selecting Utilities... Profiler brings up the usual dialogue ('Profiler Utility 3.0d by Michael Hutton April 2009'); on clicking OK the PREPORT.TXT file is displayed immediately even though it was supposed to run the program for 30 seconds! The file says: 'Time spent profiling: 30000 milliseconds' but in fact it was a fraction of a second. It's as if the profiler is running thousands of times faster than real time!

The program I used for test purposes was EXAMPLES\GRAPHICS\CHAIN.BBC. The report file claims that all 30 seconds (actually almost no time at all) was spent in the one statement SYS "LoadImage".

Richard.

Re: PROFILER UTILITY
Post by Michael Hutton on May 6^th, 2013, 08:19am

Quote:

Is that how the profiler utility currently works?

No, as you say it is non-trivial. In fact, one of the most non-trivial aspects of getting the utility to work is making sure that the @dir$ is correct for the program you are profiling as any resources that the program requires are in that directory rather than the profiler's directory, but that is a side issue.

It is compiled with a fairly recent BB4W run time engine. Although a theoretical problem, I am not sure in reality it is really a problem. As you say there is no active BB4W development but only bug fixes if there is really a need to recompile and ask people to update that really shouldn't be a problem. If that really is an issue (I don't believe so at the moment) then it could easily be recompiled.

Quote:

On 64-bits Windows 8, ......EXAMPLES\GRAPHICS\CHAIN.BBC.

Bizarre. I am using windows 7 64 bit and I can profile Chain. with out any problems. I am sure it is nothing to do with the 64-bit whatsoever I use 64-bit on every computer I have and have never had a problem.

Code:

Profiler report file - Mon.06 May 2013,09:17:40

File - C:\Program Files (x86)\BBC BASIC for Windows\EXAMPLES\GRAPHICS\CHAIN.BBC

Figures in the first column indicate approximate
time in milliseconds spent in each program line.

Figures in the second column indicate approximate
percentage of the total time spent in each program line.

Time spent Profiling       : 12546 milliseconds.

         1:     0.01      REM Chain
         0:               REM by David A. Williams with modifications by Richard T. Russell
         0:               
         0:               balls% = 100
         0:               
         0:               SYS "LoadImage", 0, @dir$+"BALL.ICO", 1, 32, 32, 16 TO H%
         0:               IF H%=0 ERROR 100, "Could not load file BALL.ICO"
         0:               
         0:               MODE 8
         0:               VDU 28,13,28,66,3
         0:               *ESC OFF
         0:               *FLOAT64
         0:               *REFRESH OFF
         0:               
         0:               ON ERROR OSCLI "REFRESH ON":PRINT 'REPORT$:END
         0:               
         0:               t=0
         0:               OFF
         0:               REPEAT
       466:     3.71      CLS
         0:               FOR I%=1 TO balls%
        68:     0.54      C%=320+180*SINRAD(t/3+I%)*COSRAD(t+8*I%)
        56:     0.45      D%=256+180*COSRAD(t/4+2*I%)*SINRAD(t+10*I%)
         7:     0.06      t+=0.03
      1398:    11.14      SYS "DrawIcon", @memhdc%, C%, D%, H%
        12:     0.10      NEXT I%
       126:     1.00      *REFRESH
     10412:    82.99      UNTIL INKEY(2)=32
         0:               *REFRESH ON
         0:               QUIT

         0:               Libraries and immediate mode

Re: PROFILER UTILITY
Post by admin on May 6^th, 2013, 09:13am

on May 6^th, 2013, 08:19am, Michael Hutton wrote:

If that really is an issue (I don't believe so at the moment)

I'm afraid I definitely consider it to be an "issue". Specifically, any program which contains a *TIMER command (added in v5.94a) cannot be profiled, since it will generate a 'Bad command' error. More generally, every new version of BB4W contains bug fixes - that's the primary reason for the annual (or so) releases - so it's not really acceptable for the bugs to 'return' when profiling a program!

Quote:

then it could easily be recompiled.

Not by me! That is the crucial thing - I have no way of updating the profiler utility because I don't have the source. If you decide to release the source then I could recompile it - if I remember - but I'd still prefer it not to be necessary.

Quote:

I am using windows 7 64 bit and I can profile Chain. with out any problems.

I have no access to a 64-bit Windows 7 machine so I can't check that. Are there any specific tests you would like me to perform on the Windows 8 machine to trace the problem?

Quote:

I am sure it is nothing to do with the 64-bit whatsoever I use 64-bit on every computer I have and have never had a problem.

In my experience, compatibility issues are much more likely to be due to the 64-bits than to the version of Windows. For example, as you may know, *RUN doesn't work properly in Win64 (that's something I need to address in the next release of BB4W). And the Unicode string alignment issue, recently discussed on the Yahoo! group, is specific to Win64 too.

I would not anticipate the next version of BB4W being released until the September time-frame, so you have some time to find and fix the fault. But I wouldn't be able to distribute the profiler utility as it stands.

Richard.

Re: PROFILER UTILITY
Post by Michael Hutton on May 8^th, 2013, 3:26pm

I will email you the code. Unfortunately, I do not have the time to keep the utility up to date and I am not sure I have the skills to do so anyhow. If new 64-bit issues are a problem then you would be the best to address them. Also, the utitlity might of had it's day if there are problems with *TIMER etc, and the need to recompile all the time would make it difficult for me to keep track of the different issues which could arise.

Shame, I enjoyed making it (even if most of it is your code).

Michael

Re: PROFILER UTILITY
Post by admin on May 8^th, 2013, 4:18pm

on May 8^th, 2013, 3:26pm, Michael Hutton wrote:

I do not have the time to keep the utility up to date and I am not sure I have the skills to do so anyhow

You and me both! My coding abilities are a mere shadow of what they once were, and I find that I make silly mistakes in even the simplest of programs. I am in little doubt that I am suffering from the early stages of dementia.

Quote:

If new 64-bit issues are a problem then you would be the best to address them.

I have only limited access to any 64-bit machines. All the main PCs which I use for testing BB4W (Windows 95, Me, 2000, XP, Windows 7 Home and Windows 7 Pro) are 32-bits. So in that sense I'm not well placed to debug 64-bit issues, but if you haven't the time I'll do what I can. Discontinuing BB4W altogether must be an option, unfortunately.

Richard.

Re: PROFILER UTILITY
Post by DDRM on May 10^th, 2013, 10:47am

on May 8^th, 2013, 4:18pm, Richard Russell wrote:

...Discontinuing BB4W altogether must be an option, unfortunately.

I certainly hope not, Richard! I use BB4W on 64 bit Vista on my home desktop and 64 bit Windows 7 on my laptop with no detectable problems. I know I don't stretch it much, but I'd be very sorry to lose it (and your outstanding support) for the sake of a few minor issues "at the periphery".

Best wishes,

David

Re: PROFILER UTILITY
Post by admin on May 10^th, 2013, 5:04pm

on May 10^th, 2013, 10:47am, DDRM wrote:

I'd be very sorry to lose it (and your outstanding support) for the sake of a few minor issues "at the periphery".

One man's "minor issue" is another's "fatal flaw"! Somebody relying on *RUN in their program would no doubt consider the fact that it doesn't work in Win64 to be pretty serious.

Richard.

Re: PROFILER UTILITY
Post by Michael Hutton on May 14^th, 2013, 1:45pm

I've just sent the file to you Richard.

Re: PROFILER UTILITY
Post by admin on May 14^th, 2013, 4:09pm

on May 14^th, 2013, 1:45pm, Michael Hutton wrote:

I've just sent the file to you Richard.

Thanks.

Out of interest, what happened to the v4.0b (beta) referred to earlier in the thread, and what were its advantages supposed to be?

Richard.

Re: PROFILER UTILITY
Post by Michael Hutton on May 15^th, 2013, 7:08pm

I've got that and can send it to you. Basically the timing was done in a seperate thread which I thought might be better. For what reason I cannot remember now. I've used it quite a lot and it doesn't seem to have any other problems which the 3.0d vesion doesn't.

Michael