On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 4:08 AM, Gwenael Casaccio <mrgwen at gmail.com> wrote:

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


It's an idea.  I guess because my need is for an efficient simulation of the
ISA, not a detailed performance analysis of the CPU, this doesn't seem
compelling.  But it might be a way to optimize the JIT's code generator.

Thanks.


>
>
> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20081031/e4aa5142/attachment.htm