From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1A56C3858D34 for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2020 02:19:45 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 1A56C3858D34 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=simark.ca Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=simark@simark.ca Received: from [10.0.0.11] (173-246-6-90.qc.cable.ebox.net [173.246.6.90]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7AF1D1E5F9; Thu, 2 Jul 2020 22:19:44 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] gdb/jit: enable tracking multiple jitter objfiles To: "Aktemur, Tankut Baris" , "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" References: <4f7d8cfd9635484c5148e72f0941a0d9f369b7f3.1592299502.git.tankut.baris.aktemur@intel.com> <40e500a7-81ab-280a-1e40-d737d9aeb93f@simark.ca> From: Simon Marchi Message-ID: <1fe7742a-dd3b-dda6-8964-a985703473df@simark.ca> Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 22:19:44 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: fr Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2020 02:19:47 -0000 On 2020-06-30 4:17 a.m., Aktemur, Tankut Baris wrote: > Hi Simon, > > On Sunday, June 21, 2020 5:33 AM, Simon Marchi wrote: >> Please tell me what you think about this. If you agree with the direction, I could >> officially post it to the list. > > Any plan to post the series these days? > > -Baris Arf, I don't think I'll have time to polish and post it soon :(. If this is on your critical path, would you mind doing it? One thing I didn't like and wanted to re-visit before posting is the fact that in jit_breakpoint_re_set_internal, we always loop over all objfiles. This means that when a new objfile appears and we call jit_breakpoint_re_set_internal, we look up the magic symbols in all the previously existing objfiles, even we have already looked them up earlier. If we haven't found the symbols in a a given objfile before, there's no need to search in that objfile again. Or maybe that's not really a problem in practice. Simon