From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10088 invoked by alias); 28 Mar 2011 20:28:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 10077 invoked by uid 22791); 28 Mar 2011 20:28:35 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 20:28:29 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p2SKST01001569 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 16:28:29 -0400 Received: from host1.jankratochvil.net (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p2SKSRf8010135 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 28 Mar 2011 16:28:28 -0400 Received: from host1.jankratochvil.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by host1.jankratochvil.net (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p2SKSRCQ013442; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 22:28:27 +0200 Received: (from jkratoch@localhost) by host1.jankratochvil.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id p2SKSQ5Q013441; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 22:28:26 +0200 Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 20:32:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Tom Tromey Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: [commit] Re: [patch 5/7] STT_GNU_IFUNC symbols reader Message-ID: <20110328202826.GE26451@host1.jankratochvil.net> References: <20110319211628.GF30867@host1.jankratochvil.net> <20110328125910.GA20141@host1.jankratochvil.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) 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: 2011-03/txt/msg01146.txt.bz2 On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 20:41:47 +0200, Tom Tromey wrote: > Yeah, but I don't like that. It isn't a big issue if you want to keep > it as-is. Left it as-is. All the uses of hashtab_obstack_allocate could be reviewed although it is also no concern in this case IMO. The hash size 1 gets mapped to the next highest prime 7 which is also high enough so I have left there 1, also other GDB code is using size 1 there. Checked in: http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-cvs/2011-03/msg00313.html Thanks, Jan