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=0.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,TO_NO_BRKTS_FROM_MSSP autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,6a09a7f0388c172e X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-07-02 06:31:04 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!feed.textport.net!newsranger.com!www.newsranger.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada From: Ted Dennison References: <9hpdkf$nhb$1@s1.read.news.oleane.net> Subject: Re: gprof question Message-ID: X-Abuse-Info: When contacting newsranger.com regarding abuse please X-Abuse-Info: forward the entire news article including headers or X-Abuse-Info: else we will not be able to process your request X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsranger.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 09:30:55 EDT Organization: http://www.newsranger.com Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 13:30:55 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:9328 Date: 2001-07-02T13:30:55+00:00 List-Id: In article <9hpdkf$nhb$1@s1.read.news.oleane.net>, Jean-Pierre Rosen says... > >I have a multi-tasks, IO intensive program that I ran under gprof to identify bottlenecks (GNAT 3.13p under Win95). >Although the (real) execution time is about 3mn 30s, gprof shows only 6 samples (at 0.01s. period!). >My explanation is that interrupts (and therefore gprof sampling) are suspended during IO suspension, and that all time spent in IO >procedures escapes analysis. Is this correct ? It would be terribly annoying in my case... I tried at one point to use gprof on WinNT, but was unable to get any useful results. If you have better luck, I'd love to hear how you did it. --- T.E.D. homepage - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html home email - mailto:dennison@telepath.com