Menu
▾
▴
valgrind-users
|
From: Jin T. L. <jl...@co...> - 2014-05-11 19:23:05
|
Hi, While I was profiling CGAL4.4 Spatial searching with callgrind, I found that some function takes more than 100% of instruction. :( I compiled CGAL with -g and -O0 options. Is this common for other applications? Any idea?? |
|
From: John R. <jr...@Bi...> - 2014-05-11 20:17:21
|
> While I was profiling CGAL4.4 Spatial searching with callgrind, > I found that some function takes more than 100% of instruction. :( > I compiled CGAL with -g and -O0 options. > > Is this common for other applications? No. > Any idea?? Tell us which version of callgrind. Tell us the name of the hardware architecture and operating system and runtime library. Tell us the name of the function, and the actual counts which seem bad. Is there only one function with bad counts? Is it directly recursive (calls itself)? Is it indirectly recursive (is in a recursive loop of multiple functions)? |
|
From: Jin T. L. <jl...@co...> - 2014-05-11 20:55:18
|
The version of valgrind: valgrind-3.9.0 HW/OS: Macbook pro retina(core: i7), Ubuntu 12.04 on Parallels. Following link has the callgrind file. https://www.dropbox.com/s/241sovlq14nrxmi/callgrind.tar.gz I’m not sure the function name, but the caller of the function is “create_internal_node_use_extension”, incl. is 70.73% This function is a directly recursive function. If you see the callees tab, you can see one of the callee takes 408.45% However, if you see call graph, this callee is disappeared. I turned on “Relative”, “Cycle Detection”, “Relative to Parent” option in kcachegrind. On May 11, 2014, at 2:17 PM, John Reiser <jr...@Bi...> wrote: >> While I was profiling CGAL4.4 Spatial searching with callgrind, >> I found that some function takes more than 100% of instruction. :( >> I compiled CGAL with -g and -O0 options. >> >> Is this common for other applications? > > No. > >> Any idea?? > > Tell us which version of callgrind. > Tell us the name of the hardware architecture and operating system and runtime library. > Tell us the name of the function, and the actual counts which seem bad. > Is there only one function with bad counts? > Is it directly recursive (calls itself)? > Is it indirectly recursive (is in a recursive loop of multiple functions)? > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Is your legacy SCM system holding you back? Join Perforce May 7 to find out: > • 3 signs your SCM is hindering your productivity > • Requirements for releasing software faster > • Expert tips and advice for migrating your SCM now > http://p.sf.net/sfu/perforce > _______________________________________________ > Valgrind-users mailing list > Val...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/valgrind-users |
|
From: Josef W. <Jos...@gm...> - 2014-05-15 19:47:59
|
Hi Jin, thanks, I can reproduce it. This is a bug in KCachegrind, and not in callgrind itself. For some reason, the caller/callee view does not correctly recognize this as recursive function call. It simply should leave the cost column empty. Simple workaround: just ignore. Josef Am 11.05.2014 22:55, schrieb Jin Tack Lim: > > The version of valgrind: valgrind-3.9.0 > HW/OS: Macbook pro retina(core: i7), Ubuntu 12.04 on Parallels. > > Following link has the callgrind file. > https://www.dropbox.com/s/241sovlq14nrxmi/callgrind.tar.gz > > I’m not sure the function name, > but the caller of the function is “create_internal_node_use_extension”, > incl. is 70.73% > This function is a directly recursive function. > If you see the callees tab, you can see one of the callee takes 408.45% > However, if you see call graph, this callee is disappeared. > > I turned on “Relative”, “Cycle Detection”, “Relative to Parent” option > in kcachegrind. > > > On May 11, 2014, at 2:17 PM, John Reiser <jr...@Bi... > <mailto:jr...@Bi...>> wrote: > >>> While I was profiling CGAL4.4 Spatial searching with callgrind, >>> I found that some function takes more than 100% of instruction. :( >>> I compiled CGAL with -g and -O0 options. >>> >>> Is this common for other applications? >> >> No. >> >>> Any idea?? >> >> Tell us which version of callgrind. >> Tell us the name of the hardware architecture and operating system and >> runtime library. >> Tell us the name of the function, and the actual counts which seem bad. >> Is there only one function with bad counts? >> Is it directly recursive (calls itself)? >> Is it indirectly recursive (is in a recursive loop of multiple functions)? >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Is your legacy SCM system holding you back? Join Perforce May 7 to >> find out: >> • 3 signs your SCM is hindering your productivity >> • Requirements for releasing software faster >> • Expert tips and advice for migrating your SCM now >> http://p.sf.net/sfu/perforce >> _______________________________________________ >> Valgrind-users mailing list >> Val...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/valgrind-users > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Is your legacy SCM system holding you back? Join Perforce May 7 to find out: > • 3 signs your SCM is hindering your productivity > • Requirements for releasing software faster > • Expert tips and advice for migrating your SCM now > http://p.sf.net/sfu/perforce > > > > _______________________________________________ > Valgrind-users mailing list > Val...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/valgrind-users > |
|
From: Jin T. L. <jl...@co...> - 2014-05-15 19:51:01
|
Thanks Josef! It helps me a lot! Jintack On May 15, 2014, at 1:47 PM, Josef Weidendorfer <Jos...@gm...> wrote: > Hi Jin, > > thanks, I can reproduce it. > > This is a bug in KCachegrind, and not in callgrind itself. > > For some reason, the caller/callee view does not correctly > recognize this as recursive function call. It simply should > leave the cost column empty. > > Simple workaround: just ignore. > > Josef > > > Am 11.05.2014 22:55, schrieb Jin Tack Lim: >> >> The version of valgrind: valgrind-3.9.0 >> HW/OS: Macbook pro retina(core: i7), Ubuntu 12.04 on Parallels. >> >> Following link has the callgrind file. >> https://www.dropbox.com/s/241sovlq14nrxmi/callgrind.tar.gz >> >> I’m not sure the function name, >> but the caller of the function is “create_internal_node_use_extension”, >> incl. is 70.73% >> This function is a directly recursive function. >> If you see the callees tab, you can see one of the callee takes 408.45% >> However, if you see call graph, this callee is disappeared. >> >> I turned on “Relative”, “Cycle Detection”, “Relative to Parent” option >> in kcachegrind. >> >> >> On May 11, 2014, at 2:17 PM, John Reiser <jr...@Bi... >> <mailto:jr...@Bi...>> wrote: >> >>>> While I was profiling CGAL4.4 Spatial searching with callgrind, >>>> I found that some function takes more than 100% of instruction. :( >>>> I compiled CGAL with -g and -O0 options. >>>> >>>> Is this common for other applications? >>> >>> No. >>> >>>> Any idea?? >>> >>> Tell us which version of callgrind. >>> Tell us the name of the hardware architecture and operating system and >>> runtime library. >>> Tell us the name of the function, and the actual counts which seem bad. >>> Is there only one function with bad counts? >>> Is it directly recursive (calls itself)? >>> Is it indirectly recursive (is in a recursive loop of multiple functions)? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> Is your legacy SCM system holding you back? Join Perforce May 7 to >>> find out: >>> • 3 signs your SCM is hindering your productivity >>> • Requirements for releasing software faster >>> • Expert tips and advice for migrating your SCM now >>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/perforce >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Valgrind-users mailing list >>> Val...@li... >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/valgrind-users >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Is your legacy SCM system holding you back? Join Perforce May 7 to find out: >> • 3 signs your SCM is hindering your productivity >> • Requirements for releasing software faster >> • Expert tips and advice for migrating your SCM now >> http://p.sf.net/sfu/perforce >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Valgrind-users mailing list >> Val...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/valgrind-users >> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > "Accelerate Dev Cycles with Automated Cross-Browser Testing - For FREE > Instantly run your Selenium tests across 300+ browser/OS combos. > Get unparalleled scalability from the best Selenium testing platform available > Simple to use. Nothing to install. Get started now for free." > http://p.sf.net/sfu/SauceLabs > _______________________________________________ > Valgrind-users mailing list > Val...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/valgrind-users |
Thanks for helping keep SourceForge clean.
X