From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11828 invoked by alias); 2 Oct 2009 23:20:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 11816 invoked by uid 22791); 2 Oct 2009 23:20:22 -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; Fri, 02 Oct 2009 23:20:18 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABBBE2BABFC; Fri, 2 Oct 2009 19:20:16 -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 vj-o8StKoCET; Fri, 2 Oct 2009 19:20:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 769D52BAB2E; Fri, 2 Oct 2009 19:20:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id F15ABF5906; Fri, 2 Oct 2009 16:20:11 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2009 23:20:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Pierre Muller Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFA] Testsuite: Change match_max for current also Message-ID: <20091002232011.GH10338@adacore.com> References: <00a301ca4368$63c22c90$2b4685b0$@u-strasbg.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <00a301ca4368$63c22c90$2b4685b0$@u-strasbg.fr> 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: 2009-10/txt/msg00082.txt.bz2 > In annota1.exp, I found that: > verbose "match_max local is: [match_max]" > verbose "match_max default is: [match_max -d]" > # This is necessary because a 2000 buffer is not enought to get > everything > # up to the prompt ad the test gets a timeout. > match_max 3000 > verbose "match_max now is: [match_max]" Yeah - wild guess is that this was done before the match_max value got unilaterally increased by default_gdb_init. > PS1: If this is approved, we should also > consider what to do about the three tests > that set another value of match_max > (lower than the 30000). We should simply remove them, since this is now handled automatically. > PS2: calling 'match_max -d 30000' several times is a waste of time, as > long as nothing changes that default value in any of the tests, should > it rather be extracted out of default_gdb_init, so that it get > executed only once? I'd say: Only if the optimization provides noticeable performance benefits. Another wild guess is that it is not noticeable, but if you can measure it, and it doesn't increase code complexity too much, sure. Of, if it does not increase code complexity at all, then by all means. I was actually wondering if we needed to change the default value at all. Just keep resetting the match_max value to the current default, or even to 30000, if we eliminate setting the default at all. > 2009-10-02 Pierre Muller > > * lib/gdb.exp (default_gdb_init): Set current value of match_max > to default. In the meantime, this looks fine to me. -- Joel