From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-47302-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 28158 invoked by alias); 21 Jan 2007 23:26:21 -0000
Received: (qmail 28131 invoked by uid 22791); 21 Jan 2007 23:26:20 -0000
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from 195.22.55.53.adsl.nextra.cz (HELO host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net) (195.22.55.53)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sun, 21 Jan 2007 23:26:16 +0000
Received: from host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) 	by host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l0LNQCVf013113; 	Mon, 22 Jan 2007 00:26:12 +0100
Received: (from jkratoch@localhost) 	by host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) id l0LNQB28013112; 	Mon, 22 Jan 2007 00:26:11 +0100
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 23:26:00 -0000
From: Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com>
To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Cc: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Follow specific symbol's DW_AT_decl_file
Message-ID: <20070121232610.GA13031@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net>
References: <20070111223940.GA8958@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> <20070121165451.GA12463@nevyn.them.org> <20070121223533.GA1890@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> <20070121225610.GB29708@nevyn.them.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20070121225610.GB29708@nevyn.them.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2007-01/txt/msg00451.txt.bz2

On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 23:56:10 +0100, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 21, 2007 at 11:35:33PM +0100, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
...
> > Due to that comment I originally valgrind(1)ed it and on my testcase the memory
> > requirement increase was visible but negligible.
> 
> How did you use valgrind for this - massif?

IIRC the default `memcheck'.  I checked its `bytes allocated' - total across
the run, not the peak total allocations size - a bit bogus but if this does not
increase much it can be assumed the code change is OK.


> I hadn't tried that one before.  I used an old copy of glibc's memusage
> script; massif is a bit more interesting.

Thanks for the tip next time I need it.  Interesting valgrind's memcheck says
618MB total and memusage 134MB total (55MB peak) but I did not check more.


Regards,
Jan