|
From: Josef W. <Jos...@gm...> - 2010-02-16 23:43:22
|
On Tuesday 16 February 2010, David wrote:
> without "--collect-jumps=yes" ("valgrind --tool=callgrind" only).
> Thank you for your reminder. I will check with the option
> --collect-jumps=yes after this discussion.
I was confused. "--collect-jumps=yes" is about jumps inside of a function,
but you just talk about calls. So, you can ignore this option.
> My assumptions are: (1) #B and #D should be the exact subroutine invoking
> counts for that line and (2) both #A and #C should be the exact Ir inclusive
> cost of this invocation instance
Yes.
> which could be found out in the output of
> "callgrind_annotate --auto=yes --inclusive=yes --threshold=100".
This should give the sum of the above inclusive Ir costs, as you talked about
the same called function (from same function), which maps to one line of the
summary list.
> The order,
> position and times of the invocation does not matter. The number before the
> "=>" should be consistent for each invocation instance.
What is the meaning of "consistent" here for you?
> > It would be good to provide a small test program with the wrong output you
> > get.
> > Thanks!
> >
>
> I will try it when I have a chance. Maybe I should try the --collect-jumps
> option first.
Just forget about this option :)
As I said: the fastest way to get the problem solved is to file a bug report
with an small test case which reproduces the problem. EMails easily get lost,
especially also for other users which have the same problem.
Josef
|