|
From: Josef W. <Jos...@gm...> - 2004-03-14 20:59:54
|
Am Sunday 14 March 2004 12:14 schrieb Nicholas Nethercote: > Main problem with using Cachegrind for coverage is that it's massive > overkill -- it will run much slowler than necessary because of all the In calltree, I did some optimization for this case. Use --simulate-cache=no, and it will skip instrumentation for every instruction, and thus quite fast. > cache simulation stuff. 2nd problem is that you can't aggregate counts > over multiple runs of a program. Enough people have asked about coverage KCachegrind does this if you load multiple dumps together. It should be no problem to provide a PERL script to do this for 2 cachegrind files. > that I wonder if it's worth doing properly with a separate tool? Jeremy's > VGProf is a good start, but requiring a patched gprof is not nice So if we want to do a seperate tool for this, I vote for the ASCII cachegrind format. I think that for coverage, you *need* also the number of distinct instruction never touched. Currenty, Cachegrind does not do this. Josef > . > > N |