blocks|key|5325489|text|如果你还在Windows平台上，我强烈推荐AQTime。它附带了大量的分析器，包括静态代码分析，可以与大多数重要的视窗编译器和系统协同工作，包括Visual+C%2B%2B、.NET、Delphi、Borland+C%2B%2B、英特尔C%2B%2B甚至是gcc。它集成到Visual+Studio中，但也可以独立使用。我爱死它了。|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|offset|length|data|5325490|entityMap|0|LINK|mutability|MUTABLE|url|http://www.automatedqa.com/^0|L|6|0|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|L|8|@]|9|@$A|M|B|N|1|O]]|C|$]]|$1|D|3|-4|5|6|7|P|8|@]|9|@]|C|$]]]|E|$F|$5|G|H|I|C|$J|K]]]]

I strongly recommend <a href="http://www.automatedqa.com" rel="nofollow noreferrer">AQTime</a> if you are staying on the Windows platform. It comes with a load of profilers, including static code analysis, and works with most important Windows compilers and systems, including Visual C++, .NET, Delphi, Borland C++, Intel C++ and even gcc. And it integrates into Visual Studio, but can also be used standalone. I love it.

blocks|key|3070178|text|如果你(仍然)在使用Visual+C%2B%2B+6.0，我建议你使用内置的分析器。对于更新的版本，您可以尝试Compuware+DevPartner+Performance+Analysis+Community+Edition。|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|offset|length|data|3070179|entityMap|0|LINK|mutability|MUTABLE|url|http://www.compuware.com/media.asp?cid=701000000004ej0^0|1F|1N|0|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|L|8|@]|9|@$A|M|B|N|1|O]]|C|$]]|$1|D|3|-4|5|6|7|P|8|@]|9|@]|C|$]]]|E|$F|$5|G|H|I|C|$J|K]]]]

If you're (still) using Visual C++ 6.0, I suggest using the built-in profiler. For more recent versions you could try <a href="http://www.compuware.com/media.asp?cid=701000000004ej0" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Compuware DevPartner Performance Analysis Community Edition</a>.

blocks|key|3070225|text|对于Windows系统，请查看Xperf，它是随Windows+SDK免费提供的。它使用采样的配置文件，具有一些有用的UI，并且不需要工具。对于跟踪性能问题非常有用。您可以回答以下问题：|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|offset|length|data|3070226|谁使用的CPU最多？使用调用堆栈向下钻取函数名。谁分配的内存最多？谁在做最多的注册表查询？磁盘写入？当你发现瓶颈时，你会非常惊讶，因为它们可能不是你期望的地方！|3070227|entityMap|0|LINK|mutability|MUTABLE|url|http://blogs.msdn.com/pigscanfly/archive/2008/02/09/xperf-a-new-tool-in-the-windows-sdk.aspx^0|F|5|0|0|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|N|8|@]|9|@$A|O|B|P|1|Q]]|C|$]]|$1|D|3|E|5|6|7|R|8|@]|9|@]|C|$]]|$1|F|3|-4|5|6|7|S|8|@]|9|@]|C|$]]]|G|$H|$5|I|J|K|C|$L|M]]]]

For Windows, check out <a href="http://blogs.msdn.com/pigscanfly/archive/2008/02/09/xperf-a-new-tool-in-the-windows-sdk.aspx" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Xperf</a> which ships free with the Windows SDK. It uses sampled profile, has some useful UI, &amp; does not require instrumentation. Quite useful for tracking down performance problems. You can answer questions like:

Who is using the most CPU? Drill down to function name using call stacks. 
Who is allocating the most memory? 
Who is doing the most registry queries? 
Disk writes? etc. 
You will be quite surprised when you find the bottlenecks, as they are probably not where you expected!

blocks|key|3915428|text|我分析非托管代码已经有一段时间了，但当我分析时，我使用Intel的vtune获得了很好的结果。我相信其他人会告诉我们这是不是被超越了。|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|data|3915429|与分析器相比，算法分析可以更深刻地提高您的性能，但仅适用于某些应用程序类别。如果您对相当大的数据集进行操作，算法分析可能会找到在CPU/内存/两者中更有效的方法，但如果您的应用程序主要是使用关系数据库进行存储的表单填充，它可能不会为您提供太多。|3915430|entityMap^0|0|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|F|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|B|3|C|5|6|7|G|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|D|3|-4|5|6|7|H|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]]|E|$]]

It's been a while since I profiled unmanaged code, but when I did I had good results with Intel's vtune. I'm sure somebody else will tell us if that's been overtaken.

Algorithmic analysis has the potential to improve your performance more profoundly than anything you'll find with a profiler, but only for certain classes of application. If you operate over reasonably large sets of data, algorithmic analysis might find ways to be more efficient in CPU/Memory/both, but if your app is mainly form-fill with a relational database for storage, it might not offer you much.

blocks|key|5325328|text|英特尔线程检测器Vtune性能分析器-查看这张图片，了解我最常使用的视图，它告诉我哪个函数占用了我的大部分时间。|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|data|5325329|​|5325330|📷|atomic|offset|length|5325331|5325332|我可以进一步深入到内部，分解它们内部的哪些函数消耗了更多的时间等。根据您正在观看的内容(总时间=+fn+%2B子函数中的时间)，自身时间(仅在函数内部运行的代码中花费的时间等)，有不同的视图。|5325333|这个工具的功能远不止分析，但我还没有全部研究过。我肯定会推荐它。该工具还可以作为全功能试用版下载，可以运行30天。如果你有成本限制，我会说这个窗口就是你所需要的全部，来指出你的问题。|5325334|试用版下载-+https://registrationcenter.intel.com/RegCenter/AutoGen.aspx?ProductID=907&AccountID=&ProgramID=&RequestDt=&rm=EVAL&lang=|5325335|ps+:我也玩过Rational，但出于某种原因，我并没有对它有太多的兴趣。我怀疑Rational可能也比Intel更贵。|5325336|entityMap|0|IMAGE|mutability|IMMUTABLE|imageUrl|https://ask.qcloudimg.com/http-save/yehe-900000/07a06e367fe2e4e0d0e3e9aa1298b2e0.jpeg|imageAlt|1|LINK|MUTABLE|url|https://registrationcenter.intel.com/RegCenter/AutoGen.aspx?ProductID=907&AccountID=&ProgramID=&RequestDt=&rm=EVAL&lang=^0|0|0|0|1|0|0|0|0|0|7|3C|1|0|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|15|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|B|3|C|5|6|7|16|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|D|3|E|5|F|7|17|8|@]|9|@$G|18|H|19|1|1A]]|A|$]]|$1|I|3|C|5|6|7|1B|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|J|3|K|5|6|7|1C|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|L|3|M|5|6|7|1D|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|N|3|O|5|6|7|1E|8|@]|9|@$G|1F|H|1G|1|1H]]|A|$]]|$1|P|3|Q|5|6|7|1I|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|R|3|-4|5|6|7|1J|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]]|S|$T|$5|U|V|W|A|$X|Y|Z|-4]]|10|$5|11|V|12|A|$13|14]]]]

Intel Thread Checker via Vtune performance analyzer- Check this picture for the view i use the most that tells me which function eats up the most of my time. 

<img src="https://computinglife.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/without-fault.jpg" alt="alt text">

I can further drill down inside and decompose which functions inside them eats up more time etc. There are different views based on what you are watching (total time = time within fn + children), self time (time spent only in code running inside the function etc).

This tool does a lot more than profiling but i haven't explored them all. I would definitely recommend it. The tool is also available for downloading as a fully functional trial version that can run for 30 days. If you have cost constraints, i would say this window is all that you require to pin point your problem. 

Trial download here - <a href="https://registrationcenter.intel.com/RegCenter/AutoGen.aspx?ProductID=907&amp;AccountID=&amp;ProgramID=&amp;RequestDt=&amp;rm=EVAL&amp;lang=" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://registrationcenter.intel.com/RegCenter/AutoGen.aspx?ProductID=907&amp;AccountID=&amp;ProgramID=&amp;RequestDt=&amp;rm=EVAL&amp;lang=</a>

ps : I have also played with Rational Rational but for some reason I did not take much to it. I suspect Rational might be more expensive than Intel too.

blocks|key|3915950|text|工具(如DevPartner的true+time+)可以让你看到源码行的命中计数，让你可以快速找到具有糟糕的'Big+O‘复杂度的算法。您仍然需要分析算法以确定如何降低复杂性。|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|data|3915951|entityMap^0|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|D|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|B|3|-4|5|6|7|E|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]]|C|$]]

Tools (like true time from DevPartner) that let you see hit counts for source lines let you quickly find algorithms that have bad 'Big O' complexity. You still have to analyse the algorithm to determine how to reduce the complexity.

blocks|key|3070498|text|在大多数情况下，我选择了同时拥有AQTime和Compuwares的AQTime。原因是，AQTime将分析任何具有有效PDB文件的可执行文件，而TrueTime则要求您进行仪表化构建。这极大地加快并简化了即席分析。如果这是一个问题，DevPartner的成本也要高得多。DevPartner的用武之地是BoundsChecker，我仍然认为它是一个比AQTimes执行分析器更好的捕获泄漏和覆盖的工具。TrueTime可以比AQTime稍微精确一点，但我从来没有发现这是一个问题。|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|data|3070499|如果您需要提高本地应用程序的性能，那么性能分析是值得的。我想你也学到了很多关于你的程序和算法是如何工作的，以及使用某些类型的对象类来存储和迭代你的数据的成本影响。|3070500|entityMap^0|0|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|F|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|B|3|C|5|6|7|G|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|D|3|-4|5|6|7|H|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]]|E|$]]

I second AQTime, having both AQTime and Compuwares DevPartner, for most cases. The reason being that AQTime will profile any executable that has a valid PDB file, whereas TrueTime requires you to make an instrumented build. This greatly speeds up and simplifies ad hoc profiling. DevPartner is also quite a bit more expensive if this is an issue. Where DevPartner comes into its own is with BoundsChecker, which I still rate as a better tool for catching leaks and overwrites than AQTimes execution profiler. TrueTime can be slighly more accurate than AQTime, but I have never found this to be an issue.

Is profiling worthwhile, IMO yes, if you need performance gains on a local application. I think you also learn a lot about how your program and algorithms really work, and the cost implications of using certain types of object classes for storing and iterating through your data.

blocks|key|5325037|text|Glowcode是一个非常好的分析器(当它工作的时候)。它可以附加到一个正在运行的程序，只需要符号文件-你不需要重建。|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|offset|length|data|5325038|entityMap|0|LINK|mutability|MUTABLE|url|http://www.glowcode.com/^0|0|8|0|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|L|8|@]|9|@$A|M|B|N|1|O]]|C|$]]|$1|D|3|-4|5|6|7|P|8|@]|9|@]|C|$]]]|E|$F|$5|G|H|I|C|$J|K]]]]

<a href="http://www.glowcode.com/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Glowcode</a> is a very nice profiler (when it works). It can attach to a running program and requires only symbol files - you don't need to rebuild.

blocks|key|3915653|text|一些版本的pf+visual+studio+2005+(可能是2008)实际上提供了一个相当好的性能分析器。|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|data|3915654|如果您有它，它应该在工具菜单下可用|3915655|或者，您可以搜索一种打开"performance+explorer“窗口的方法来启动新的性能会话。|3915656|A+link+to+MSDN|offset|length|3915657|entityMap|0|LINK|mutability|MUTABLE|url|http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-gb/library/ms182371(VS.80).aspx^0|0|0|0|0|E|0|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|R|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|B|3|C|5|6|7|S|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|D|3|E|5|6|7|T|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|F|3|G|5|6|7|U|8|@]|9|@$H|V|I|W|1|X]]|A|$]]|$1|J|3|-4|5|6|7|Y|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]]|K|$L|$5|M|N|O|A|$P|Q]]]]

Some versions pf visual studio 2005 (and maybe 2008) actually come with a pretty good performance profiler. 
if you have it it should be available under the tools menu 
or you can search for a way to open the "performance explorer" window to start a new performance session. 
<a href="http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-gb/library/ms182371(VS.80).aspx" rel="nofollow noreferrer">A link to MSDN</a>

blocks|key|5325757|text|仅供参考，Visual+Studio的某些版本仅附带非优化编译器。对于我的一个MFC应用程序，如果我用-o3用MINGW/MSYS+(+gcc编译器)编译它，那么它的运行速度大约是我的发行版用Visual+Studio编译的5-10倍。|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|data|5325758|例如，我有一个openstreetmap+xml编译器，处理一个2.7+it的xml文件大约需要3分钟(+gcc编译的版本)。我的visual+studio编译相同的代码大约需要18分钟。|5325759|entityMap^0|0|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|F|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|B|3|C|5|6|7|G|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|D|3|-4|5|6|7|H|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]]|E|$]]

FYI, Some versions of Visual Studio only come with a non-optimizing compiler. For one of my my MFC apps if I compile it with MINGW/MSYS ( gcc compiler ) with -o3 then it runs about 5-10x as fast as my release compile with Visual Studio. 

For example I have an openstreetmap xml compiler and it takes about 3 minutes ( the gcc compiled version) to process a 2.7GB xml file. My visual studio compile of the same code takes about 18 minutes to run.

What good profilers do you know? 

What is a good way to measure and tweak the performance of a C++ MFC application?

Is Analysis of algorithms really neccesary? <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algorithm_analysis" rel="noreferrer">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algorithm_analysis</a>

How to measure performance in a C++ (MFC) application?

翻译质量差，导致语言生硬或混乱。

没有提供实际的解决方法或示例。

解答不清晰，无法理解或解决问题。

页面排版不美观，阅读体验差。

文章

问答

视频

学习中心

腾讯云实验室

直播

竞赛

腾讯云代码分析专区

腾讯iOA零信任安全管理系统专区

腾讯云架构师技术同盟交流圈

腾讯云数据库专区

腾讯云顾问专区

腾讯云原生专区

腾讯混元专区

腾讯云TCE专区

腾讯云Lighthouse专区

腾讯云HAI专区

腾讯云Edgeone专区

腾讯云存储专区

腾讯云智能专区

腾讯轻联专区 

腾讯云开发专区

TAPD专区

腾讯轻量云游戏服专区

腾讯云最具价值专家

腾讯云架构师技术同盟

腾讯云创作之星

腾讯云开发者先锋

腾讯云代码助手

云原生构建

TAPD 敏捷项目管理

Cloud Studio

SDK中心

API中心

命令行工具

涵盖代码开发、场景应用、自动测试全流程，助你从零构建专属AI助手

一站式MCP教程库，解锁AI应用新玩法

你知道哪些好的分析器？测量和调整C++应用程序性能的好方法是什么？算法分析真的是必要的吗？

问如何衡量C++应用程序的性能？
EN

回答 10

Stack Overflow用户

Stack Overflow用户

Stack Overflow用户

社区

活动

圈层

关于

腾讯云开发者

热门产品

热门推荐

更多推荐

问如何衡量C++应用程序的性能？EN

回答 10

Stack Overflow用户

Stack Overflow用户

Stack Overflow用户

社区

活动

圈层

关于

腾讯云开发者

热门产品

热门推荐

更多推荐

问如何衡量C++应用程序的性能？
EN