This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
RE: [PATCH] Output execution stats from ARM simulator
- From: Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: jbeniston at compxs dot com
- Cc: gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 15:05:56 +0000
- Subject: RE: [PATCH] Output execution stats from ARM simulator
- Organization: GNU
- References: <002301c4d623$6178e990$0bbda8c0@Kindrogan>
On Mon, 2004-11-29 at 14:54, Jon Beniston wrote:
> > >
> > > 2004-11-29 Jon Beniston <jon@beniston.com>
> > >
> > > * wrapper.c (sim_info): Output number of instructions
> > > executed and number of cycles taken to execute them.
> >
> > While I don't see anything wrong with your patch, I'm not
> > sure whether that information is accurately tracked any more.
> > So the numbers probably aren't meaningful, especially for
> > any core other than an ARM7 (and I don't mean an ARM7TDMI either).
>
> I can understand cycles not being valid (as this surely is core specific),
> but I take it the number of instructions executed should be?
>
> Cheers,
> Jon
A quick look at the source suggests the instruction count is probably OK
in a free-running simulation, but I would want to do more testing for
use with gdb and single-stepping before I could be certain about that
case.
The cycle counts are probably not modelled at all for some of the newly
added instructions, and the S/N/I counts are pretty meaningless on
Harvard-Architecture cores.
R.