Repository navigation
Customizing line_profiler #188
Description
I love the module and have been using it for years, for which many thanks.
A StackOverflow question appeared yesterday asking - wait for it - about type checking (32-bit vs 64-bit) for every function call. Here is the Q:
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/74516195/detecting-unexpected-type-conversion-in-python
I suggested line_profiler (or memory_profiler) might be hackable along the lines of https://stackoverflow.com/a/74517678/1021819
Do you have any advice on whether customizing line_profiler in this way would be feasible, and if so how one might go about it?
Thanks again!
Activity
Erotemic commentedon Nov 28, 2022
Because this repo requires each function is manually registered to be profiled, I think this might not be a fit. However, there were discussions about automatically discovering and profiling all functions automatically, which is more aligned with what you need.
See #21 and #24 I thought there was another where I discuss using code in xdoctest / mkinit to automatically enumerate items to profile, but I can't find it.
ta946 commentedon Dec 10, 2022
i dont recommend following whats in issues #21 & #24. they are very hacky and inefficient.
I've updated the code to use AST which is alot more reliable. you can follow the changes i made in my fork under autoprofile branch and use it as a stepping stone to get what you want as I don't plan on maintaining my fork and keeping it up to date.
also @Erotemic you were looking for this discussion where you mentioned using xdoctest. And if you have some free time i've responded in there that my autoprofiler is close to completion :)