Hm, well, I posted some screenshots, but apparently the post was deleted. The traces do not look correct. All the C functions have the same stack trace, when viewed in the profiler.
On Thursday, January 16, 2020 at 7:20:42 AM UTC-8, Alon Zakai wrote: > > Those stack traces look like _main() (likely a JS wrapper) calls > baos_push() or hfc_lookup(). Are those not correct stack traces? They do > look a little odd as I'd expect to see main() (not a JS wrapper, but in > wasm) in the middle, at least. > > If you were expecting more stack traces to be profiled, perhaps the random > sampling didn't happen to pick any up because the sample was too short and > those stack traces too rare? > > If you have a testcase you can share, I can take a look - I don't think > I've seen something like this before, could be a bug. Or a screenshot might > help too, maybe the UI is confusing (can try changing between top-down and > bottom-up displays in the profiler perhaps, one might be less clear than > the other). > > On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 2:36 PM Brian Craft <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > >> When using the chrome profiler, the stack traces for wasm functions are >> all identical. Like so: >> >> WASM_function#25:module:_baos_push >> js-to-wasm#93:export:js-to-wasm#93 >> Module._main >> >> WASM_function#101:module:_hfc_lookup >> js-to-wasm#93:export:js-to-wasm#93 >> Module._main >> >> Is this expected? What does it mean? To be clear, I was expecting the >> stack to show the calls between the different wasm functions, as you would >> see if profiling on other platforms. >> >> -- >> >> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "emscripten-discuss" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/emscripten-discuss/836ec3ae-bf93-4645-8f24-e96d55e9f505%40googlegroups.com.
