From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18014 invoked by alias); 12 Sep 2008 17:43:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 18004 invoked by uid 22791); 12 Sep 2008 17:43:19 -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; Fri, 12 Sep 2008 17:42:44 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3A7D2A96B4; Fri, 12 Sep 2008 13:42:42 -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 dm5zrdMOHBkV; Fri, 12 Sep 2008 13:42:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA47F2A96B3; Fri, 12 Sep 2008 13:42:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 23034E7ACD; Fri, 12 Sep 2008 10:42:40 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 17:43:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Tom Tromey Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFA/commit/dwarf] Create partial symbols for nested subprograms Message-ID: <20080912174240.GF3714@adacore.com> References: <20080910201959.GC10133@adacore.com> <20080910203437.GA26162@caradoc.them.org> <20080911175422.GS12222@adacore.com> <20080911183730.GA17809@caradoc.them.org> <20080912041800.GA3714@adacore.com> <20080912165541.GE3714@adacore.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: 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: 2008-09/txt/msg00278.txt.bz2 > Essentially, the drawback of this approach is that, before writing > code that uses psymbols, you must decide whether they should be loaded > or not. I quickly looked at the patch, and it doesn't seem as bad as it sounds. I just joined the archer list, so we can discuss the details there when you have found what the issue is with number of symtabs, but the one thing that I am wondering is how users will respond to an unexpectedly long delay when entering a command that is usually fast and yet takes a noticeably long time that one time. For intance, imagine the following scenario: % gdb my_300MB_exe (gdb) break main [12 secs later...] Breakpoint 1, ... -- Joel