KCacheGrind equivalent for OS X

AFAICT, there is no OS X-native cachegrind file visualization app for OS X. THIS BLOWS ASS. Right now I’m on hour 5 of compiling shit from Fink to get KCacheGrind installed, and even then I have to run that shit in the XWindows env. Turdly.

I’m sorta kicking around the idea of writing one of my own in RealBasic, which would be handy because it would be cross-platform out of the box. Thoughts?

  • JW
    08/07/2006 05:09:04 PM

    While it didn’t take me anywhere near that long to get kcachegrind compiled and installed via fink, a native app would be great.

  • Israel Alvarez
    09/15/2006 10:24:37 AM

    Yes, this does suck. CURSE YOU ANDREW ROHL, he-who-created-the-povray-port-for-fink-whihc-wouldn’t-compile-and-halted-the-install-of-bundle-kde-because-he-forgot-to-add-a-.1-to-the-name-of-the-tarball. That little annoyance took me about 2 hours to track & fix. Not to mention that XFree didn’t compile so I had to switch to x.org.

    So yeah, we need a native kcachegrind. I’m willing to take a shot at it with RealBasic, once I figure out what functionality it should have, once I actually get kcachegrind running. Hopefully soon.

  • Sven
    02/22/2008 02:07:35 PM

    So, how’s that OS X native, RealBasic based version of kcachegrind coming along? I’d guess in the year and a half since you first mentioned it you must have made some pretty significant progress.

  • Ed Finkler
    02/22/2008 02:59:19 PM


  • philip olson
    02/29/2008 02:31:35 AM

    +1 :)

  • Colin
    05/05/2009 02:54:19 AM

    So this thread is ancient, so you all may have what you’re looking for already, but anyway, it looks like kcachegrind is available via darwin ports:


  • Craig
    08/10/2009 11:23:44 AM

    Darwin ports (or Mac ports) appears to be no better than Fink. Both massive overkill when you just want one binary. 90 minutes of building and half a gigabyte under /opt for it to bomb out on libtiff because my XCode version isn’t new enough by one minor version, even though the gcc version is fine. It pulled down a lot of stuff that’s already on the system by default, or has an equivalent. e.g. it’s building sed, perl, mesa, python, etc, all for kcachegrind! It was quicker to download and install Fedora under VirtualBox and use the linux kcachegrind binary from yum! Not impressed.

  • funkatron
    08/10/2009 11:27:58 AM

    I would agree. The state of package managers on OS X isn’t close to Linux. OTOH, there just isn’t the support there for it. A shame.

  • Michael Knight
    09/01/2009 12:01:24 AM

    I haven’t tried this yet, but there is http://www.maccallgrind.com/

  • Benjamin
    10/02/2009 03:32:35 PM

    MacCallGrind is actually not to bad. Very basic, no graphs, etc, but does display time results, call tree, and line numbers pretty well. Plenty of features could be added to make it more useful, though.

    Another web-based option is Carica CacheGrind: http://sourceforge.net/projects/ccg/

    Like webgrind you can bank on httpd (if you’re using apache) to run at about 95% CPU usage for a good long while if you’re parsing large cachegrind files (as I am…).

    MacCallGrind is much faster, but could use more “goodies.”