nom VS flamegraph

Just in case you are not familiar with nom, it is a parser combinator written in Rust. The most basic thing you can do with it is import one of its parsing functions, give it some byte or string input and then get a Result as output with the parsed value and the rest of the input or an error if the parser failed. tag for example is used to recognize literal character/byte sequences.

I may be the only one not familiar, but nom refers to https://github.com/rust-bakery/nom which looks like a pretty handy way to parse binary data in Rust.

Lots of people use nom for their parsing needs, but that's not the only game in town and there other options.

As much as I love nom as well as other parser combinator libraries, regex-based parsers, BNF/EBNF-based parsers, etc. I always end up going back to plain old text-based char-by-char scanners.

I am using nom / nom_locate to build the parser side because I've done a handful of other projects with it, and I plan to use tower-lsp to hook up the language server side.

Look into a parsing library such as https://github.com/rust-bakery/nom

If we were in /r/learnrust I'd have recommended the nom crate for this.

Thanks to the flexibility of [nom](https://github.com/rust-bakery/nom), it is very easy to write your own parser in rust, read [this article](https://github.com/metaworm/luac-parser-rs/wiki/Write-custom-luac-parser) to learn how to write a luac parser

I've been working on an assembler and right now it uses nom. While nom isn't great for error messages, good error messages will be important for this particular assembler (current code), so I've been attempting to use the methods described by Eyal Kalderon in Error recovery with parser combinators (using nom).

You can install cargo-flamegraph with cargo install flamegraph. There are some underlying requirements to be able to use cargo-flamegraph; you will want to take a look at the repo here to make sure you have the right dependencies.

I tried to diagnose the issue with flamegraph, but unfortunately the flamegraph didn't show anything beyond the next call for some reason

having some tools to identify slowness origins (flamegraph is one... but not sure it's the way to go)

I'm currently implementing a solution for the first part of the day 16. It work but it is really slow... I'd like to : - understand why - having some tools to identify slowness origins (flamegraph is one... but not sure it's the way to go) - eventually have some clue/solution/idea - have general feedback on what in my "coding style" is not appropriate for rust (I come from java/kotlin/ts even if I've already coded a bit in c/c++) : for example I love iterator & sequence but i feel they are not really suited to overuse in rust (mostly because of async & result).

Use a profiler. Flamegraph is a good way to visualise profiler output. This lets you identify which functions are taking up a large amount of time - and hence helps you identify where to focus your optimisation efforts.

You tried trying to see what takes the most time under load via flames? https://github.com/flamegraph-rs/flamegraph

Well, in cases like that the answer is straight forward, use a profiler like https://github.com/flamegraph-rs/flamegraph

I don't see any obvious problems with your algorithm. I've had luck using cargo-flamegraph to identify the slow parts of my code. That's going to show you which parts to focus on improving the performance of!

From the readme of cargo flamegraph: