From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28042 invoked by alias); 1 Oct 2007 20:49:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 28033 invoked by uid 22791); 1 Oct 2007 20:49:51 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 01 Oct 2007 20:49:47 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7B372AA660 for ; Mon, 1 Oct 2007 16:49:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id X+G6t5-WE2vH for ; Mon, 1 Oct 2007 16:49:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A25632AA657 for ; Mon, 1 Oct 2007 16:49:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 92E7EE7B58; Mon, 1 Oct 2007 13:49:43 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 20:49:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [rfc] Remove some empty lines from the linetable Message-ID: <20071001204943.GB4305@adacore.com> References: <20071001154757.GC12927@caradoc.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20071001154757.GC12927@caradoc.them.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i 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: 2007-10/txt/msg00008.txt.bz2 > I thought about sorting groups of consecutive lines instead of > individual lines. That's tricky and a wasteful of memory, though, if > this simpler solution works: just delete such troublesome cases in > record_line. I think it makes sense. > 2007-10-01 Daniel Jacobowitz > > * buildsym.c (record_line): Remove empty lines followed by > end-of-sequence markers. There is one thing I am not sure about, though. In your patch, you still add the end-of-sequence marker. So you eliminate the empty line 58, but keep it's associated line 0 entry. I guess we have to in the following case: line 57 @ 0x1234 line 58 @ 0x1240 line 0 @ 0x1240 We need this because otherwise we'd record the wrong end-address for line 57. So I agree the patch makes sense, and I prefer it to be independent of the debugging info. -- Joel