|
From: Josef W. <Jos...@gm...> - 2010-02-16 20:56:25
|
Hi,
On Tuesday 16 February 2010, David wrote:
> I am confused about the Ir count before the "=>" symbol in the annotated
> source code. For example, if the annotated source code looks like
>
> function F ()
> {
> ...
> #A => subroutine SR (#Bx)
> ...
> #C => subroutine SR (#Dx)
> ...
> }
>
> where #A - #D are four numbers and SR in two lines is the same subroutine.
I suppose you talk about the output of "callgrind_annotate --auto=yes" on a
output of callgrind run with "--collect-jumps=yes" ?
> It seems that the numbers in the parenthesis ending with 'X' (#B and #D) is
> the exact subroutine invoking counts but the numbers before the "=>" symbol
> can not be treated as the exact Ir count for the corresponding invoking.
Hmm. It looks like it should be the exact Ir inclusive cost of this invocation
instance. If it is not, it seems to be a bug.
> Some times the bigger number of #A and #C corresponds to the Inclusive Ir
> count of the function SR. Sometimes neither of them corresponds to the
> Inclusive Ir count of the function SR and the sum of them is obvious beyond
> that Inclusive Ir count.
That sounds very wrong.
Can you file a bug report?
It would be good to provide a small test program with the wrong output you get.
Thanks!
Josef
> How should I understand the Ir count before the
> "=>" symbol? Where can I find more detailed information about the annotated
> source code? Any suggestion is appreciated!
>
>
> Peace,
> -David
>
|