From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,9e718c96a7961738
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!news2.google.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: "Alex R. Mosteo" <devnull@mailinator.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Profiling GNAT programs with gprof
Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2005 19:00:12 +0200
Message-ID: <42A5D29C.8050101@mailinator.com>
References: <42A5C785.CB651501@alfred-hilscher.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net f6ROtNVn2u9peGGC/f0JQQX0iW97MU3Mn78mIs/Xjjv3EN/OQ=
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (X11/20050317)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
In-Reply-To: <42A5C785.CB651501@alfred-hilscher.de>
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:11252
Date: 2005-06-07T19:00:12+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Alfred Hilscher wrote:
> Has someone experience with gprof and GNAT? It seem to work when I
> profile sequential programs, but if I have tasks in my code then the
> result of gprof seem invalid. E.g. a procedure called only three times
> at all is listed as about 10000 calls. And while the over all runtime of
> the prog is about 2 sec, gprof shows the consumed time for this
> procedure with a few thousands seconds. 
> It looks like as if the statistik counters were not initialized. What
> have I to do, to get correct results?
> I use GNAT 3.15p and Windows 2000.

I did this in the past in the same platform as you, also with a 
multitasking program. I don't remember seeing unexpected counter values. 
   Have you a simple test program to highligth this problem? I could try 
to run it and compare results.

If I'm not mistaken, the timing problem can arise from the way gprof 
computes time: each call is given a fixed diferential duration. So that 
can artificially inflate the times reported. But you should check this 
in the documentation, I may be confused about this behavior.