From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12312 invoked by alias); 21 Jul 2011 14:04:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 12300 invoked by uid 22791); 21 Jul 2011 14:03:59 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (38.113.113.100) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 14:03:44 +0000 Received: (qmail 18818 invoked from network); 21 Jul 2011 14:03:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO scottsdale.localnet) (pedro@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 21 Jul 2011 14:03:44 -0000 From: Pedro Alves To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] On-demand loading of shlib's debuginfo Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 15:19:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.6 (Linux/2.6.38-8-generic; KDE/4.6.2; x86_64; ; ) Cc: Jan Kratochvil , Sergio Durigan Junior References: <201107211158.45196.pedro@codesourcery.com> <20110721122104.GA326@host1.jankratochvil.net> In-Reply-To: <20110721122104.GA326@host1.jankratochvil.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201107211503.41130.pedro@codesourcery.com> 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: 2011-07/txt/msg00583.txt.bz2 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