From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
To: Nick Roberts <nickrob@snap.net.nz>
Cc: Vladimir Prus <ghost@cs.msu.su>, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] MI: Free values when updating
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 12:12:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20070123121147.GA32010@nevyn.them.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <17845.60212.898642.763807@kahikatea.snap.net.nz>
On Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 12:02:12AM +1300, Nick Roberts wrote:
> > > it's just that this patch stops calling it at other times
> > > when it's needed. Without any change, do enable timings (if you have that
> > > patch), create a variable object of a large array and all its children then
> > > repeatedly do "-var-update *". It should take longer and longer to execute.
> >
> > Why? Is it because the memory consumption of gdb grows, or because the list
> > of released values grows without ever being cleared, or for some other
> > reason?
>
> The latter, I think.
Except that there isn't a list of released values. So what is GDB
doing that is taking longer and longer?
The call to release_value does a linear walk over all non-released
values. So if we have a lot of things which aren't being released,
then your patch which calls free_all_values is probably the right thing
to do - that should clean it up.
> > - if (gdb_evaluate_expression (var->root->exp, &new_val))
> > - {
> > - release_value (new_val);
> > - }
> > -
> > + gdb_evaluate_expression (var->root->exp, &new_val);
> > return new_val;
> > }
>
> I think if you also remove the (3) calls to release_value in c_value_of_child
> and cplus_value_of_child this is equivalent to my change (and more tidy).
No, those are different. They come from things like the call to
gdb_value_ind in c_describe_child. That creates a new value, which is
returned to the caller (the MI front end, to be printed and later
released). It's the ones in c_value_of_root which matter, because we
save them in the varobj.
You're probably right about the increasing time though - releasing
something already released will be slow. I wonder if we should make
that an internal error somehow.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-01-23 12:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-01-23 7:45 Nick Roberts
2007-01-23 7:55 ` Vladimir Prus
2007-01-23 8:56 ` Nick Roberts
2007-01-23 9:15 ` Vladimir Prus
2007-01-23 11:02 ` Nick Roberts
2007-01-23 12:12 ` Daniel Jacobowitz [this message]
2007-01-23 21:19 ` Nick Roberts
2007-01-23 21:35 ` Vladimir Prus
2007-01-24 8:00 ` Vladimir Prus
2007-01-24 9:14 ` Nick Roberts
2007-01-24 9:21 ` Vladimir Prus
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=20070123121147.GA32010@nevyn.them.org \
--to=drow@false.org \
--cc=gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com \
--cc=ghost@cs.msu.su \
--cc=nickrob@snap.net.nz \
/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