From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8476 invoked by alias); 3 Jan 2004 16:34:36 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 8454 invoked from network); 3 Jan 2004 16:34:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO gollum.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.22) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 3 Jan 2004 16:34:35 -0000 Received: from zaretski ([80.230.157.220]) by gollum.inter.net.il (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.3.8-GR) with ESMTP id CDM40842; Sat, 3 Jan 2004 18:33:06 +0200 (IST) Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2004 16:34:00 -0000 From: "Eli Zaretskii" To: Joel Brobecker Message-Id: <1659-Sat03Jan2004183031+0200-eliz@elta.co.il> CC: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <20040103144250.GW820@gnat.com> (message from Joel Brobecker on Sat, 3 Jan 2004 15:42:50 +0100) Subject: Re: [RFC/dwarf-2] Add support for included files Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <20040102072500.GS826@gnat.com> <20040102141802.GA28372@nevyn.them.org> <20040103144250.GW820@gnat.com> X-SW-Source: 2004-01/txt/msg00058.txt.bz2 > Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 15:42:50 +0100 > From: Joel Brobecker > > 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 If that is not true, consider my reservations to be withdrawn.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.