D.
On 15 February 2013 13:51, Eero Tamminen
<oak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi,
On perjantai 15 helmikuu 2013, Douglas Little wrote:
> > Currently I'm showing time in seconds, with 3 decimals, is
> > that enough? (It's assumed to be used with longer operations)
>
> If it is accumulated time over the duration of the profiling, then yes I
> think that's fine.
>
> (For instantaneous / 'per visit' timings, that would need to be
> represented as cycles only).
All values profiler shows, are accumulated ones.
I eventually decided on 5 decimals, it doesn't look too bad:
-----------------
Normal RAM (0-0x400000):
- no activity
ROM TOS (0xE00000-0xE80000):
- active address range:
0xe00034-0xe49422
- active instruction addresses:
16370 (100.00% of all)
- executed instructions:
30785602 (100.00% of all)
- instruction cache misses:
5085856 (100.00% of all)
- used cycles:
167483888 (100.00% of all)
= 10.44002s
Cartridge ROM (0xFA0000-0xFC0000):
- no activity
= 10.44002s
Cache misses per instruction, number of occurrences:
- 0: 26289475
- 1: 4121892
- 2: 158741
- 3: 215494
-----------------
(5 decimals might be useful for timing when breakpoints are close together.)
This is commit for profiler itself:
http://hg.tuxfamily.org/mercurialroot/hatari/hatari/rev/9a9c44adb88f
Data header and post-processor changes come later.
- Eero