Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 19:17:35 +1100 From: Peter Jeremy <peterjeremy@optushome.com.au> To: Mayank Kumar <mayank@microsoft.com> Cc: "freebsd-current@freebsd.org" <freebsd-current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Questio on Gprof Message-ID: <20070219081735.GE827@turion.vk2pj.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: <76EBE649FB0E0E4DA883B5840459059F1438609B3C@AA-EXMSG-C412.southpacific.corp.microsoft.com> References: <76EBE649FB0E0E4DA883B5840459059F1438609B3C@AA-EXMSG-C412.southpacific.corp.microsoft.com>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
[-- Attachment #1 --] [Please wrap your lines before 80 columns] On 2007-Feb-18 22:08:17 +0800, Mayank Kumar <mayank@microsoft.com> wrote: >I want to know if gprof's profling is solely dependent on the system >call profil() or are there other implementations of gprof which do >not depend on this system call. gprof has two sources of data: Firstly sampling information giving number of hits by text address. This information is collected by the kernel - profil() just tells the kernel where to store the profiling samples. The second source is caller/callee counts collected by .mcount in userland. I am unaware of any alternative to profil() - in theory, it could be implemented in userland but the overheads would be extremely high. >Also is there a profiler available for freebsd or any unix system >which is based on instrumentation rather then sampling. gprof relies on both instrumentatin and sampling. An alternative would be gcov - though it reports line counts rather than execution time statistics. -- Peter Jeremy [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFF2V0f/opHv/APuIcRAmpOAKCij4vz3PaacoZwyAZqJ3CFX5FA8gCgulAq QsZu8NQDqER8StOAcO+40nU= =IQvA -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----help
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070219081735.GE827>