Why don't you use Valgrind with Callgrind or Cachegrind :

Cachegrind

Cachegrind is a cache profiler. It performs detailed simulation of the 
I1, D1 and L2 caches in your CPU and so can accurately pinpoint the 
sources of cache misses in your code. It identifies the number of cache 
misses, memory references and instructions executed for each line of 
source code, with per-function, per-module and whole-program summaries. 
It is useful with programs written in any language. Cachegrind runs 
programs about 20--100x slower than normal.
Callgrind
Callgrind, by Josef Weidendorfer, is an extension to Cachegrind. It 
provides all the information that Cachegrind does, plus extra 
information about callgraphs. It was folded into the main Valgrind 
distribution in version 3.2.0. Available separately is an amazing 
visualisation tool, KCachegrind, which gives a much better overview of 
the data that Callgrind collects; it can also be used to visualise 
Cachegrind's output.

On 10/31/08 2:36 AM, Eliot Miranda wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 6:21 PM, Igor Stasenko <siguctua at gmail.com
> <mailto:siguctua at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     2008/10/31 Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda at gmail.com
>     <mailto:eliot.miranda at gmail.com>>:
>      > Hi All,
>      > I wonder if anyone has any 32-bit processor implementations,
>     either in
>      > Smalltalk or in some other, preferrably easy-to-parse, formal
>     semantics. In
>      > implementing the new JIT VM I would like to continue developing
>     in Smalltalk
>      > using VMMaker/Slang, but this implies having a processor
>     simulation in
>      > Smalltalk to produce actual machine code for. Ideally this would
>     be an x86
>      > of some description (doesn't need to be bang up to date, 386
>     would be fine).
>      > I'd also welcome an ARM.
>      > TIA
>      >
>
>     Hi Eliot.
>     To my knowledge, Exupery is the only project which dealing with
>     assembly code.
>     There are some mechanisms to define instructions.
>
>
> I understand that. But I'm not too interested in code generation (I can
> write this myself or adapt other code). What I need is a processor
> simulation to generate code for, preferrably a clone of an x86, one that
> executes its own instruction set. Then I can test the JIT in Smalltalk.
>
> I believe Peter Deutsch write a 68000 simulator when he implemented PS,
> the first Smalltalk-80 JIT, but I could be wrong and perhaps he only
> implemented an assembler for the 68000.
>
>
>
>
>      >
>      >
>
>
>
>     --
>     Best regards,
>     Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>