Abstract

Tracing by automatic program source instrumentation has major advantages over compiled code instrumentation: it is more portable, it benefits from many compiler optimizations, it produces traces in terms of the original program, and it can be tailored to specific debugging needs. The usual argument in favor of compiled code instrumentation is its supposed efficiency. We have compared the performance of two operational low-level Prolog tracers with source instrumentation. We have executed classical Prolog benchmark programs, collecting trace information without displaying it. On average, collecting trace information by program instrumentation is about as fast as using a low-level tracer in one case, and only twice slower in the other. This is a minor penalty to pay, compared to the advantages of the approach. To our knowledge, this is the first time that a quantitative comparison of both approaches is made for any programming language. 1 Introduction There are four basic ways to trace ...

Citations

89	A debugger for standard ml - Tolmach, Appel - 1995
71	Understanding the control flow of Prolog programs - Byrd - 1980
28	Logic Programming Environments: Dynamic Program Analysis and Debugging - Ducassé, Noyé - 1994
24	SEPIA - an extendible Prolog system - Meier, Aggoun, et al. - 1989
21	A Powerful Prolog Trace Package - Eisenstadt - 1984
12	Opium: An extendable trace analyser for Prolog. The Journal of Logic programming - Ducassé - 1999
12	Fast Prolog with an extended general purpose architecture - Holmer - 1990
8	Source-to-source Transformationen zur Erklarung des Programmverhaltens bei deduktiven Datenbanken - Specht - 1992
6	An Overview of the Knowledge Crunching Machine - Noye
6	High-Performance Logic Programming with the Aquarius Prolog Compiler - Roy, Despain - 1992
4	A Framework for Declarative Prolog Debugging - Calejo - 1992
1	ECLiPSe 3.5 - User Manual - ECRC, Germany - 1995
1	High performance Prolog on a RISC - Taylor - 1991