From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21143 invoked by alias); 20 Aug 2009 21:06:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 21133 invoked by uid 22791); 20 Aug 2009 21:06:36 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 20 Aug 2009 21:06:29 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 111F2108C6; Thu, 20 Aug 2009 21:06:27 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (209.195.188.212.nauticom.net [209.195.188.212]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCAB91072B; Thu, 20 Aug 2009 21:06:26 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MeEq1-0003LM-1s; Thu, 20 Aug 2009 17:06:25 -0400 Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 22:34:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Paul Pluzhnikov Cc: Ulrich Weigand , Ulrich Weigand , gdb-patches ml , Tom Tromey Subject: Re: [patch] Speed up find_pc_section Message-ID: <20090820210625.GA12418@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Paul Pluzhnikov , Ulrich Weigand , Ulrich Weigand , gdb-patches ml , Tom Tromey References: <8ac60eac0908201057y44de0b84gdf193f2e2a81bc68@mail.gmail.com> <200908201822.n7KIM1vZ008118@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> <8ac60eac0908201340k6b759eb5o9bb73c8f473d8785@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <8ac60eac0908201340k6b759eb5o9bb73c8f473d8785@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-IsSubscribed: yes 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: 2009-08/txt/msg00330.txt.bz2 On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 01:40:11PM -0700, Paul Pluzhnikov wrote: > + if (lma != 0 && lma != bfd_section_vma (abfd, section)) > + /* This is an overlay section. */ > + return 0; I see that you are using the same check as section_is_overlay, but this really jumped out at me: I don't think this has anything to do with overlay-ness. In a bare metal application, it's not uncommon to have LMA != VMA for every section. That may be good enough for what you need here... I suppose you could define such an application as 'only overlays', but I think of overlays as having more than one set of code for the same VMA. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery