Implements import from the [callgrind format](https://www.valgrind.org/docs/manual/cl-format.html).
This comes with a big caveat that the call graph information contained with callgrind formatted files don't uniquely define a flamegraph, so the generated flamegraph is a best-effort guess. Here's the comment from the top of the main file for the callgrind importer with an examplataion:
```
// https://www.valgrind.org/docs/manual/cl-format.html
//
// Larger example files can be found by searching on github:
// https://github.com/search?q=cfn%3D&type=code
//
// Converting callgrind files into flamegraphs is challenging because callgrind
// formatted profiles contain call graphs with weighted nodes and edges, and
// such a weighted call graph does not uniquely define a flamegraph.
//
// Consider a program that looks like this:
//
// // example.js
// function backup(read) {
// if (read) {
// read()
// } else {
// write()
// }
// }
//
// function start() {
// backup(true)
// }
//
// function end() {
// backup(false)
// }
//
// start()
// end()
//
// Profiling this program might result in a profile that looks like the
// following flame graph defined in Brendan Gregg's plaintext format:
//
// start;backup;read 4
// end;backup;write 4
//
// When we convert this execution into a call-graph, we get the following:
//
// +------------------+ +---------------+
// | start (self: 0) | | end (self: 0) |
// +------------------+ +---------------|
// \ /
// (total: 4) \ / (total: 4)
// v v
// +------------------+
// | backup (self: 0) |
// +------------------+
// / \
// (total: 4) / \ (total: 4)
// v v
// +----------------+ +-----------------+
// | read (self: 4) | | write (self: 4) |
// +----------------+ +-----------------+
//
// In the process of the conversion, we've lost information about the ratio of
// time spent in read v.s. write in the start call v.s. the end call. The
// following flame graph would yield the exact same call-graph, and therefore
// the exact sample call-grind formatted profile:
//
// start;backup;read 3
// start;backup;write 1
// end;backup;read 1
// end;backup;write 3
//
// This is unfortunate, since it means we can't produce a flamegraph that isn't
// potentially lying about the what the actual execution behavior was. To
// produce a flamegraph at all from the call graph representation, we have to
// decide how much weight each sub-call should have. Given that we know the
// total weight of each node, we'll make the incorrect assumption that every
// invocation of a function will have the average distribution of costs among
// the sub-function invocations. In the example given, this means we assume that
// every invocation of backup() is assumed to spend half its time in read() and
// half its time in write().
//
// So the flamegraph we'll produce from the given call-graph will actually be:
//
// start;backup;read 2
// start;backup;write 2
// end;backup;read 2
// end;backup;write 2
//
// A particularly bad consequence is that the resulting flamegraph will suggest
// that there was at some point a call stack that looked like
// strat;backup;write, even though that never happened in the real program
// execution.
```
Fixes#18
24b60dfd4a