On Tue, 5 Feb 2008, Josef Weidendorfer wrote: > How similar is the format for VCov to cachegrind's? I suppose this > only needs a further "event" for a source line: whether there is debug info > or not.
It's simpler than Cachegrind's. There's no function-level information, so no "fn=" lines. Also, it only records one number per line, and there is no description in the file of what that number means. I thought about reusing the Cachegrind format. I didn't for two main reasons: - The output from cg_annotate isn't quite right -- it doesn't compute coverage percentages, and it doesn't highlight unexecuted lines sufficiently, and we don't need function-level information. Since cg_annotate doesn't do the right thing, the motivation for using the same format is diminished. - I have to parse it in the tool itself (ie. in C) so simpler makes that easier. It's not set in stone, but I felt the reasons against using Cachegrind's format were stronger than the reasons for. > Ah, I just saw the description before parse_buffer(). Do you only output > lines where debug info is available? Yes. Nick ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ Valgrind-developers mailing list Valgrind-developers@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/valgrind-developers
