Mirror of the gdb-patches mailing list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz@elta.co.il>
To: Joel Brobecker <brobecker@gnat.com>
Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC/dwarf-2] Add support for included files
Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2004 16:34:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1659-Sat03Jan2004183031+0200-eliz@elta.co.il> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20040103144250.GW820@gnat.com> (message from Joel Brobecker on Sat, 3 Jan 2004 15:42:50 +0100)

> Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 15:42:50 +0100
> From: Joel Brobecker <brobecker@gnat.com>
> 
> Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > How about if we only do that scan when the file name is not found in
> > the partial symbols, i.e. just before GDB is about to give up and
> > report the file as nonexistent?  Assuming that the cases you have in
> > mind are rare, this would mean faster operation in most cases.
> 
> I am a bit relunctant to go that way, because I think the current
> approach of using a half-baked psymtabs to hold include files is
> a bit too adhoc for my taste. Adding an extra step after having scanned
> the psymtab list to iterate over all objfiles, and re-partially scan the
> debugging information seems to be going one step further in
> ``legitimizing'' this adhoc approach.

I made that suggestion because it sounded like the addition you made
caused some percepted slow-down of the psymtab scan.  If that is not
true, consider my reservations to be withdrawn.

In other words, I would also like to see some measurements, as you
say:

> It seems a bit of effort for a gain that we haven't measured.
> I would suggest going the simple way first and re-think it if
> the performance becomes noticeably worse. If somebody has a large
> app like mozilla that he can use to do some measurement, I would
> sure appreciate how much slower it is to startup with the patch
> I posted.

Perhaps even a not-so-behemoth example would do fine.


  reply	other threads:[~2004-01-03 16:34 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2004-01-02  7:25 Joel Brobecker
2004-01-02 14:18 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2004-01-03 14:42   ` Joel Brobecker
2004-01-03 16:34     ` Eli Zaretskii [this message]
2004-01-03 17:47       ` Joel Brobecker
2004-01-02 14:45 ` Eli Zaretskii
2004-01-05 16:18 ` Andrew Cagney
2004-01-05 19:17   ` Joel Brobecker
2004-04-07 16:05 Jim Blandy
2004-04-13  5:20 ` Joel Brobecker
2004-04-14 19:10   ` Jim Blandy
2004-04-15 22:13     ` Joel Brobecker
2004-04-16  4:24       ` Jim Blandy
2004-04-16  4:28         ` Joel Brobecker
2004-04-16 23:08         ` Joel Brobecker
2004-04-29 23:32           ` Jim Blandy
2004-05-01  1:14             ` Joel Brobecker
2004-05-01  4:57               ` Jim Blandy
2004-05-03 16:25                 ` Joel Brobecker
2004-05-03 22:15 Andrew Pinski
2004-05-04  0:15 ` Joel Brobecker
2004-05-04  0:18   ` Andrew Pinski

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1659-Sat03Jan2004183031+0200-eliz@elta.co.il \
    --to=eliz@elta.co.il \
    --cc=brobecker@gnat.com \
    --cc=gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox