From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 696 invoked by alias); 24 Nov 2009 07:22:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 684 invoked by uid 22791); 24 Nov 2009 07:22:28 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp.nokia.com (HELO mgw-mx09.nokia.com) (192.100.105.134) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 24 Nov 2009 07:22:21 +0000 Received: from esebh105.NOE.Nokia.com (esebh105.ntc.nokia.com [172.21.138.211]) by mgw-mx09.nokia.com (Switch-3.3.3/Switch-3.3.3) with ESMTP id nAO7M89b032157 for ; Tue, 24 Nov 2009 01:22:19 -0600 Received: from vaebh104.NOE.Nokia.com ([10.160.244.30]) by esebh105.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 24 Nov 2009 09:22:11 +0200 Received: from mgw-da02.ext.nokia.com ([147.243.128.26]) by vaebh104.NOE.Nokia.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 24 Nov 2009 09:22:09 +0200 Received: from gar.localnet (bettdhcp167121.europe.nokia.com [172.25.167.121]) by mgw-da02.ext.nokia.com (Switch-3.3.3/Switch-3.3.3) with ESMTP id nAO7M8gw024990 for ; Tue, 24 Nov 2009 09:22:08 +0200 From: =?iso-8859-15?q?Andr=E9_P=F6nitz?= To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFA 2/4] dwarf2_physname Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 07:22:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.11.2 (Linux/2.6.28-11-generic; KDE/4.2.2; i686; ; ) References: <4B0707E7.5010308@uglyboxes.com> <200911230826.59752.andre.poenitz@nokia.com> <4B0ABEAA.20206@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <4B0ABEAA.20206@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200911240819.14359.andre.poenitz@nokia.com> X-Nokia-AV: Clean 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: 2009-11/txt/msg00521.txt.bz2 On Monday 23 November 2009 17:56:10 Keith Seitz wrote: > On 11/22/2009 11:26 PM, Andr=E9 P=F6nitz wrote: >=20 > > I am really worried about the performance degradation you expect. > > > > How bad will that be? >=20 > If we can define a suitable metric, I would be happy to perform any=20 > testing/comparisons necessary. >=20 > > If the deal is "correct but slow" vs "flaky but faster" I surely prefer= the > > "flaky but fast" side. I have encountered quite a few issues with C++ in > > gdb, so yes, that's not nice. But usually one can work around somehow on > > the user side. Raw speed on the other hand is nothing the user can impr= ove. >=20 > I'm more of a "correct over speed" guy myself, but your concern is=20 > noted. Maintainers will have to weigh this matter when more information=20 > about the impact is known. >=20 > Like I said: If anyone can define for me a suitable test(s), I would be=20 > happy to do whatever necessary to quantify this. I am in the same camp in general, too, but in this particular case the "user experience" is already stretched to a degree that people start pointing fingers ;-} I guess it's hard to come up with a benchmark that everybody=20 would consider authoritive. I could run a few tests for scenarios I am interested in, though. Am I right in assuming that I could just pull one of the archer archer-keiths-* branches? Would that be archer-keiths-linkage_name-redux? Andre'