From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28605 invoked by alias); 30 Nov 2006 03:13:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 28582 invoked by uid 22791); 30 Nov 2006 03:13:31 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31.1) with ESMTP; Thu, 30 Nov 2006 03:13:26 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1GpcMV-0006or-B0; Wed, 29 Nov 2006 22:13:23 -0500 Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 03:13:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Jean-Marc Saffroy Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] gdb script performance Message-ID: <20061130031323.GA25957@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Jean-Marc Saffroy , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-11/txt/msg00414.txt.bz2 On Thu, Nov 30, 2006 at 01:33:02AM +0100, Jean-Marc Saffroy wrote: > It seems the patches I posted yesterday on the gdb list have gone > completely unnoticed, so I guess I should resend them here. This is the right list for patches. However, please be patient - there is a chronic scarcity of reviewers, but we all do what we can. > This is still unfinished (hooks for invalidating the caches are missing, > and I'm sure performance can still be enhanced significantly), but before > going further, I'd like to know how you feel about integrating such > changes. I'm glad to see some of this stuff sped up. However, I'm hopeful that there's a better way to do it - shouldn't there be a more efficiently searchable data structure for whatever you're caching in the first place? Maybe there isn't; just thinking out loud. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery