From: DAVENPORT, M. <mda...@co...> - 2016-09-14 17:14:05
|
I haven't been able to get gprof to output results that make any sense for some time now. I'd be interested if you actually get it to work. Marc On Sep 14, 2016 11:34 AM, "Anton Shepelev" <ant...@gm...> wrote: > Manolo to Anton Shepelev: > > >>while they clearly take different times to com- > >>plete. > > > >How do you know this? Have you measured times? > > I measured the times manually, but here I do it in > the code: > > #include "test.h" > #include <stdlib.h> > #include <stdio.h> > #include <time.h> > > void genwait( unsigned t ) > { clock_t before, after; > unsigned i; > char line[3]; > double time_sec; > before = clock(); > for( i = 0; i < t; i++ ) > { sprintf(line, "a"); } > after = clock(); > time_sec = ((double)(after - before)) / CLOCKS_PER_SEC; > printf( "%i cycles took %2.3g seconds.\n", t, time_sec ); > } > > void wait1() > { genwait(100000000); } > > void wait2() > { genwait(800000000); } > > void wait3() > { genwait(1600000000); } > > void WorkHard() > { int i=0; > wait1(); > wait2(); > wait3(); > } > > And the program outputs different execution times: > > 100000000 cycles took 0.344 seconds. > 800000000 cycles took 2.86 seconds. > 1600000000 cycles took 5.7 seconds. > > The modified test sample is here: > > http://preview.tinyurl.com/jdtecwk > > but gprof still shows the average time of about 2.7 > seconds for each test run. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > ------------------ > _______________________________________________ > MinGW-users mailing list > Min...@li... > > This list observes the Etiquette found at > http://www.mingw.org/Mailing_Lists. > We ask that you be polite and do the same. Disregard for the list > etiquette may cause your account to be moderated. > > _______________________________________________ > You may change your MinGW Account Options or unsubscribe at: > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mingw-users > Also: mailto:min...@li...?subject=unsubscribe > |