Sorry for the outlook response... :-) Could maybe find a way to flush function names (and addresses) as metadata? Will require some work, but should be feasible. Would require significant post-processing.
/Nils -----Original Message----- From: Matthew Khouzam [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: den 12 maj 2011 20:28 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [ltt-dev] UST Instrumenting function entries and exits We could do a compromise and save the string the when there is a new address. There are many caching schemes that can work. Thanks for the input Francis. On 11-05-12 02:18 PM, Francis Giraldeau wrote: > On Thu, 2011-05-12 at 13:32 -0400, Matthew Khouzam wrote: >> Hello world, >> I just made a little program that I'm testing out and want some >> opinions now that Mathieu D and Nils are not able to read their >> emails. ;) >> >> This is a shared object (or code injected straight into the source) >> that will allow ust calls to be hooked onto the function entries and exits. > IMHO, this is truly a killer feature for UST! I wonder what is the > performance difference between this technique with UST compared to > gprof and callgrind (valgrind tool). > > For making this a real feature thought, it would be nice to save the > address, not the string itself. Could it be convenient to save in the > trace the function name string the first time the function is hit, > then the symbol table at analysis time would not be required? > > Anyway, very interesting stuff! > > Francis > > > _______________________________________________ > ltt-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.casi.polymtl.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ltt-dev _______________________________________________ ltt-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.casi.polymtl.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ltt-dev _______________________________________________ ltt-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.casi.polymtl.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ltt-dev
