Re: [info-performer] one new Performer 2.5.1 announce - one thing with pfGetTime()

New Message Reply Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

From: Tom Flynn (flynnt++at++engr.sgi.com)
Date: 05/21/2002 11:45:29


so you're only experiencing a problem when you're single stepping with the
debugger? weird. I'll take a look at it, but i could use a little more
information...

which distro?
which version of the distro?
which compiler? (gcc2 or gcc3)?
and since this is dealing with pfGetTime(), what's the clock speed on your
CPU?

thanks,
tom

On Tue, 21 May 2002, Serge Kourdakov wrote:

> Hi
>
> I have installed new Performer 2.5.1 for linux .
> and now i could debug my progs with KDbg ...
> ( just to explain sorry I came to linux programming from windows where I
> programmed for several years so
> I had accustomed to graphical debug tools ...)
>
> So now
> it is great time for me - I can use graphical debugger! ... but what I
> noticed - a strange behaviour of pfGetTime()
> in case I run a prog ( compiled -g -O0) without debugger being launched - it
> works OK and gets time ...
> ( I tried simple programs which are shipped with Performer as examples and
> have pfGetTime calls)
>
> but in case i step a source with debugger it returns 'nan' ..... ( yes I
> init timer ... - as timer works when running a prog without stepping by
> KDbg or KDeveloper debugger ...)
>
> Thus I had to replace pfGetTime()t with calls to gettimeofday function -
> which works in described conditions ...
> and continue my debug experiments :-)
>
> Any reasons for such a behaviour of pf GetTime() or maybe I do something
> wrong?
>
> Regards
> Serge
> http://www.vrtainment.de
>
>
>
>

--
"Mongooses are famous for their snake-fighting ability, and are
 almost always victorious because of their speed, agility, and timing
 and also because of their thick coat."


New Message Reply Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 21 2002 - 11:45:39 PDT

This message has been cleansed for anti-spam protection. Replace '++at++' in any mail addresses with the '@' symbol.