|
From: Josef W. <Jos...@gm...> - 2003-03-05 23:38:47
|
Hi, I just got a bug/misbehaviour report for cachegrind which is IMHO justified (from Lars Knoll <la...@tr...>). It's about wrong costs of some GLIBC functions when run under cachegrind, namely the ones being reimplemented by valgrind, e.g. malloc, __builtin_new and so on. If you have C++ code with lots of new/delete, the profiled costs are by far underestimated. Aside from signal/thread handling, is there any need that the valgrind-supplied variants have to be called on the simulated CPU when using skins like cachegrind? I would prefer running the original functions and put all the symbols of "vg_clientfuncs.c" into the respective skin. Or am I totally wrong here? Josef |