On Mon, 3 Apr 2023 at 21:36, David Faure <fa...@kde.org> wrote: > > But then, what's the difference between `cachegrind --cache-sim=no` > and `callgrind`? > > https://accu.org/journals/overload/20/111/floyd_1886/ says > "The main differences are that Callgrind has more information about the > callstack whilst cachegrind gives more information about cache hit rates." > > Wouldn't one want callstacks? (if this means stack traces). > I know I must be missing something, thanks for enlightening me. >
Callgrind is a forked and extended version of Cachegrind. It also simulates a cache, with a slightly different simulation to Cachegrind's. The fact that both tools exist is due to historical reasons; if starting from scratch today you wouldn't deliberately split them. Call stacks are often useful (I regularly use Callgrind as well as Cachegrind) but they aren't always necessary. Without them, Cachegrind runs faster than Callgrind and produces smaller data files. Cachegrind also supports diffing and merging different files, while Callgrind does not. Nick
_______________________________________________ Valgrind-users mailing list Valgrind-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/valgrind-users
