there is factor of 4 error in gprof

[rchasman]

Since upgrading to ubuntu dapper kernel 2.6.15-25-686,
the times reported by gprof have changed by a factor of 4.

My gprof version is 2.16.91

Note: the original reporter indicated the bug was in package 'gprof'; however, that package was not published in Ubuntu.

[Andrew Ash (ash211)]

Thanks for the bug report. Is this still a bug in Edgy?

[rchasman (rchasman)]

 I don't know. I am still using dapper.

 -----Original Message-----
 From: <email address hidden>
 To: <email address hidden>
 Sent: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 7:21 PM
 Subject: [Bug 50225] Re: there is factor of 4 error in gprof

  Thanks for the bug report. Is this still a bug in Edgy?

** Changed in: Ubuntu
       Status: Unconfirmed => Needs Info

--
there is factor of 4 error in gprof
https://launchpad.net/bugs/50225

________________________________________________________________________
Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and industry-leading spam and email virus protection.

[tokj (tokj-deactivatedaccount)]

Does this problem still occurs?

[rchasman (rchasman)]

 I am still using ubuntu 6.06 and the problem is still there. Actually, it is a factor of 0.4 not 4. The gprof total time must be multiplied by 0.4 to agree with the elapsed time.

 -----Original Message-----
 From: <email address hidden>
 To: <email address hidden>
 Sent: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 11:47 AM
 Subject: [Bug 50225] Re: there is factor of 4 error in gprof

  Does this problem still occurs?

--
there is factor of 4 error in gprof
https://launchpad.net/bugs/50225

________________________________________________________________________
Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and industry-leading spam and email virus protection.

[tokj (tokj-deactivatedaccount)]

Confirming the bug.

[Philip Paquette (pcpaquette)]

Hi,

You are talking about a bug in 'gprof', but I didn't find such package in ubuntu. Therefore, I do suggest you tell us where that package can be downloaded from so we can submit the bug upstream (since Ubuntu is not writing the code for that package), or submit the bug upstream yourself. Moreover, I would recommend Rejecting this bug, since it doesn't apply to any package in Ubuntu.

Could you correct me if I am mistaking or post any comments if you think we should let this bug open.

Sincerely yours...
Philip

[Pascal De Vuyst (pascal-devuyst)]

This bug did not have a package associated with it, which is important for ensuring that it gets looked at by the proper developers. You can learn more about finding the right package at [WWW] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/FindRightPackage. I have classified this bug as a bug in binutils.

[Matthias Klose (doko)]

closing this issue as won't fix. please report it upstream yourself, if this is still seen, and if you are interested in getting this resolved upstream.