Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 15:28:55 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu (Steven G. Kargl) Cc: terry@lambert.org, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Is profiling code broken? Message-ID: <199610232228.PAA10622@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <199610232210.PAA07504@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> from "Steven G. Kargl" at Oct 23, 96 03:10:00 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > I would expect the second do loop to be removed by a decent optimizer; > > ij is not a dependent variable. Maybe the back end changed to 2.7.2 or > > the default optimization flags have changed in the compilation script? > > Okay, it was a simple example program. On my code with 5k lines that > can take an hour or more to run, I still get no profiling information > other than the number of times a function (subroutine) has been called. Right. The buckets are divided by address space into per symbol buckets. Profiling is, by definition, done at a per function granularity. What function are you calling that isn't showing up? Maybe a better question would be: what did you want it to show, as opposed to what it does show? Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199610232228.PAA10622>