heaptrack VS benchmark

If we are talking replacing the libc allocator, then something like heaptrack is worth mentioning.

https://github.com/KDE/heaptrack

For accurate memory usage I prefer a memory profiler that overrides malloc and friends instead of the ones that probe the OS at regular intervals. You won't find memory spikes with the latter. Try heaptrack on Linux. I haven't found a good one for Windows yet.

I know it is not a profiler, but it is so criminally underrated that I decided to share it: https://github.com/KDE/heaptrack

If none of the above helps - I recommend heaptrack as a tool for tracking down your memory usage.

> memory leaks. It's surprisingly hard to find an easy to use memory leak detection tool.

I can vouch for heaptrack[1] nowadays, although it's pretty much Linux only. It's under the umbrella of KDE, but a heaptrack trace only requires a CLI app, and there is a nice Qt viewer to analyse the memory consumption.

It tracks the memory utilization at the level of malloc'd/free'd bytes. It's fine if your memory leak or other memory utilization problem is on this level. Recently I dealt with an issue, where increasing memory utilization was caused by fragmentation within the allocator. This didn't show up in heaptrack as an increasing memory utilization, but heaptrack still pointed out where most of the temporary allocations happened, leading to the culprit of the fragmentation.

[1] https://github.com/KDE/heaptrack

This is probably what you are looking for https://github.com/KDE/heaptrack

When I had this kind problems (heap related) I always use heaptrack. Take a look here for the details: https://github.com/KDE/heaptrack

I'm aware of one by Google that I used a couple times, but IMO it's better to capture real runtime data from a fully-operational process than to carve out the benchmarkable bits and test them in isolation, so I track information during program testing and print it all to a log instead of using things like that.

If you just want to do some quick benchmarks, you can just use std::chrono::high_resolution_clock::now(). Call it before the code that you are benchmarking and then immediately after. Take them away and you have your duration. If you want to use a proper benchmarking tool then I can totally recommend Google Benchmark. Fantastic benchmarking tool. Honourable mention would be Quick Bench which is an online tool that uses Google Benchmark.

I tried to install google benchmark(https://github.com/google/benchmark) in my ubuntu machine by :

We don't know if it's a lie until we verify it and that's not difficult, you have a quicksort implementation in a couple of languages, you'll need to pass the necessary parameters to show the time needed by a function call to execute to the compiler or interpreter or you may use use a library(like benchmark for C++) and you're good to go.

If you are uncertain about the performance characteristics of a function you should ALWAYS benchmark it. Googles Benchmark library is wonderful for quick micro benchmarks. For more complex things, perhaps look into profiling and then look at invocation counts of copy constructors.

Your compiler may be optimising away your loop, there. I typically use a micro-benchmarking tool for these types of tests. You could try Google Benchmark. It’s available in most OS’ package managers, but pretty easy to build from source if not

C++: C++ has quite a number of benchmarking libraries some of the recent ones involving C++ 20's flexibility. The most notable being Google Bench and UT. C does not have many specific benchmarking libraries, but you can easily integrate C code with C++ benchmarking libraries in order to test the performance of your C code.