Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 08:29:02 +0200 From: "Eli Zaretskii" Sender: halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com Message-Id: <3405-Sat17Mar2001082901+0200-eliz@is.elta.co.il> X-Mailer: Emacs 20.6 (via feedmail 8.3.emacs20_6 I) and Blat ver 1.8.6 In-reply-to: <3ab2a100.659119@news.redshift.com> (damon@WRONG.redshift.com) Subject: Re: GPROF reports zero time spent? References: <3aa69f21 DOT 386105 AT news DOT redshift DOT com> <9867vf$9ts$1 AT nets3 DOT rz DOT RWTH-Aachen DOT DE> <3aa6b9b7 DOT 800087 AT news DOT redshift DOT com> <7263-Thu08Mar2001090237+0200-eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il> <3aa7c5f5 DOT 208835 AT news DOT redshift DOT com> <7704-Sat10Mar2001195349+0200-eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il> <3ab2a100 DOT 659119 AT news DOT redshift DOT com> Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com Precedence: bulk > From: damon AT WRONG DOT redshift DOT com (Damon Casale) > Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp > Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 23:28:27 GMT > >> > >> I checked my install directory. I have the BinUtils 2.9.5.1 (or > >> however you arrange the dots) zip file there. I checked the date/time > >> stamp of gprof in the zip file and compared it with the gprof on my > >> test machine. Same date/time stamp, same file size. > > > >Gprof is not the problem: the bug described in the FAQ was in the > >DJGPP library, and it affected the profiled code, not Gprof itself. > >That is, the profiled code would report bogus profile data. > > Errr...wouldn't it cause a problem if gprof was compiled with the > earlier library? No. The bug was in the library function that _gathers_ the profile info. This function runs in the program being profiled; Gprof never calls it. Gprof is just a simple BFD application that translates EIP values into symbol names using the symbol table, and then formats them nicely for output. It doesn't itself mess with timing and such likes.