From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28945 invoked by alias); 7 Sep 2009 20:57:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 28937 invoked by uid 22791); 7 Sep 2009 20:57:10 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (65.74.133.4) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 07 Sep 2009 20:56:56 +0000 Received: (qmail 18196 invoked from network); 7 Sep 2009 20:56:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO orlando) (pedro@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 7 Sep 2009 20:56:55 -0000 From: Pedro Alves To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFA/PATCH] PR/9711: quadratic slowdown for deep stack traces Date: Mon, 07 Sep 2009 20:57:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.10 Cc: Joel Brobecker , Doug Evans References: <20090903183658.GJ4343@adacore.com> <20090907203321.GI30677@adacore.com> In-Reply-To: <20090907203321.GI30677@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200909072156.53133.pedro@codesourcery.com> 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: 2009-09/txt/msg00168.txt.bz2 On Monday 07 September 2009 21:33:21, Joel Brobecker wrote: > > Nit: It seems like there's a redundant call to frame_id_eq in frame_find_by_id. > > Ooops, you're right. Thanks for catching this! Here is a new patch. > I used "frame_stash" to avoid the confusion with the "cache" terminology > used in that unit. > > Currently testing on x86_64-linux... > Hmmm, nowhere in the patch is the actual reason this is needed explained. Could you have some of that? + /* Try using the frame cache first. */ + frame = frame_stash_find (id); + if (frame) + return frame; I guess here would be a good place to explain it. At least update the comment to refer to stash instead of cache. :-) -- Pedro Alves