From: Pedro Alves <pedro@codesourcery.com>
To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Cc: Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com>,
Sergio Durigan Junior <sergiodj@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] On-demand loading of shlib's debuginfo
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 15:19:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <201107211503.41130.pedro@codesourcery.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110721122104.GA326@host1.jankratochvil.net>
On Thursday 21 July 2011 13:21:04, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jul 2011 12:58:44 +0200, Pedro Alves wrote:
> > Is that the reason then that svr4_match_pc_solist goes through
> > the link map to map a PC to a so_list, instead of having a
> > generic implementation that matches the PC to the so_list's
> > loaded (bfd) sections (that is, just call solib_contains_address_p) ?
> > If so, it'd make more sense IMO to remove that from this patch,
> > and add it only along with a change that lazies mapping in the bfd
> > and its sections as well. I'm not sure how safe that will be.
>
> I agree the patch as is does not make much sense on its own IMHO, maybe it
> could be pre-approved but checked-in only later with the bfd part of it.
I was under the impression that the debug info loading would be
the major hog, and lazying that alone would stand on its own (as this
patch, but with a solib_contains_address_pc_p call in solib_on_demand_load
instead of the new match_pc_solist stuff). Do you expect that lazying
opening the bfd and mapping its target sections to save a fair amount of
additional time?
Some benchmarks would indeed by nice...
--
Pedro Alves
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-07-21 14:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-07-19 5:34 Sergio Durigan Junior
2011-07-20 22:01 ` Jan Kratochvil
2011-07-21 11:13 ` Pedro Alves
2011-07-21 14:03 ` Jan Kratochvil
2011-07-21 15:19 ` Pedro Alves [this message]
2011-07-21 20:38 ` Tom Tromey
2011-07-21 18:43 ` Sergio Durigan Junior
2011-07-21 19:21 ` Pedro Alves
2011-07-21 20:10 ` Jan Kratochvil
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=201107211503.41130.pedro@codesourcery.com \
--to=pedro@codesourcery.com \
--cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
--cc=jan.kratochvil@redhat.com \
--cc=sergiodj@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox