From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27537 invoked by alias); 13 May 2009 09:27:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 27527 invoked by uid 22791); 13 May 2009 09:27:17 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 13 May 2009 09:27:12 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E577A2BAC34; Wed, 13 May 2009 05:27:10 -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 Wrxw2hzNTU9d; Wed, 13 May 2009 05:27:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B76CB2BAC33; Wed, 13 May 2009 05:27:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 1A340F5A07; Wed, 13 May 2009 11:27:09 +0200 (CEST) Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 09:27:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Paul Pluzhnikov Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Tom Tromey Subject: Re: [patch] Eliminate quadratic slow-down on number of solibs (part 2). Message-ID: <20090513092709.GB7292@adacore.com> References: <8ac60eac0905051749p3b5d14d9q8903b9de8e18137f@mail.gmail.com> <20090512082530.GD7584@adacore.com> <8ac60eac0905121353i4aae7110sebb34bec1de0d6d8@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <8ac60eac0905121353i4aae7110sebb34bec1de0d6d8@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) 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: 2009-05/txt/msg00264.txt.bz2 > Because of that, your "maintenance set ..." suggestion doesn't > make sense to me: why would you ever want O(N*N) algorithm when an > O(N) one is available? There was a communication issue somewhere. I didn't suggest that we should keep the O(N*N) algorithm. The command was on top of already having the O(N) approach... -- Joel