From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32618 invoked by alias); 8 Oct 2008 03:32:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 32610 invoked by uid 22791); 8 Oct 2008 03:32:03 -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; Wed, 08 Oct 2008 03:31:28 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6017E2A9637; Tue, 7 Oct 2008 23:31:26 -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 gB3QCVgMoCzv; Tue, 7 Oct 2008 23:31:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3703C2A9636; Tue, 7 Oct 2008 23:31:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 92F2AE7ACD; Tue, 7 Oct 2008 23:31:25 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2008 03:32:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Jan Kratochvil Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Daniel Jacobowitz , Tom Tromey Subject: Re: type/main_type/field size [Re: [patch] static_kind -> bit0, bit1] Message-ID: <20081008033125.GF3810@adacore.com> References: <20080818111120.GE16894@adacore.com> <200808181553.m7IFrG3w005270@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> <48A59B3C.9050801@net-b.de> <20080818111120.GE16894@adacore.com> <20080907115637.GA12939@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> <20080919221221.GA23372@adacore.com> <20080926125754.GC21287@caradoc.them.org> <20081006200928.GD3588@adacore.com> <20081007232111.GA6913@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20081007232111.GA6913@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> 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: 2008-10/txt/msg00242.txt.bz2 > > I think it is kind of ugly, and i tried to think about it for a while, > > but I don't see many possible solutions if we don't want to increase > > the gdbtype struct size. > > BTW are there some measurements if sizeof (type / main_type / field) > matters? Once in a while, Tom will post some numbers with each of his size improvements. He worked pretty hard at reducing the sizes by some bytes, so I'd like to know what he thinks of the increase before adding a pointer back (4-8 bytes). (2MB seems like a small and reasonable increase to me) -- Joel