From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8945 invoked by alias); 7 Sep 2009 23:12:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 8901 invoked by uid 22791); 7 Sep 2009 23:12:46 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 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; Mon, 07 Sep 2009 23:12:38 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8DE72BABAF; Mon, 7 Sep 2009 19:12:35 -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 82kGBbvUZXDj; Mon, 7 Sep 2009 19:12:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A631B2BAB6C; Mon, 7 Sep 2009 19:12:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 936F4F589B; Mon, 7 Sep 2009 16:12:18 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 07 Sep 2009 23:12:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Pedro Alves Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Doug Evans Subject: Re: [RFA/PATCH] PR/9711: quadratic slowdown for deep stack traces Message-ID: <20090907231213.GM30677@adacore.com> References: <20090903183658.GJ4343@adacore.com> <200909072156.53133.pedro@codesourcery.com> <20090907220012.GK30677@adacore.com> <200909072321.12505.pedro@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200909072321.12505.pedro@codesourcery.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: 2009-09/txt/msg00178.txt.bz2 > Fine with me, although I wouldn't mind a reference to which is the > the "another function" talked about here (--- my thinking is that it > should be "easy" to get here when touching the problematic caller in > question. If it is grep-easy, the merrier. If the reference in the > comment ends up out-of-date at some point, then it just means the > that a good time to rethink the stash as been > reached). Just a "(see foo_func)" would be fine. Anyway, thanks! I usually am not a big fan of putting references to other calling functions inside comments, but I don't mind much. New version attached. I am hoping to commit this on Wednesday (still hoping that we have every blocking item dealt with by then, although it looks like it's going to be a bit of a stretch). -- Joel