From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8352 invoked by alias); 19 Dec 2011 10:23:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 8342 invoked by uid 22791); 19 Dec 2011 10:23:14 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS 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, 19 Dec 2011 10:22:58 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id pBJAMiFO014392 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 19 Dec 2011 05:22:44 -0500 Received: from host2.jankratochvil.net (ovpn-116-60.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.60]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id pBJAMdTO010488 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 19 Dec 2011 05:22:42 -0500 Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 10:31:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Joel Brobecker Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Pedro Alves , Tom Tromey Subject: Re: [patch+7.4] reread.exp 7.3->7.4 regression Message-ID: <20111219102239.GA9612@host2.jankratochvil.net> References: <20111218115343.GB22534@host2.jankratochvil.net> <20111219034807.GN21915@adacore.com> <20111219093131.GA3484@host2.jankratochvil.net> <20111219095427.GT21915@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20111219095427.GT21915@adacore.com> 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: 2011-12/txt/msg00630.txt.bz2 On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 10:54:27 +0100, Joel Brobecker wrote: > I think this problem ties us with the problem Tom was trying to > figure out, where BFD opens and closes bfd's without telling us. Not sure if you refer to Tom's pointing at bfd/cache.c and its /* The maximum number of files which the cache will keep open at one time. */ #define BFD_CACHE_MAX_OPEN 10 which possibly negatively affects performance in GNU/Linux but it closes only bfd->iostream, not bfd itself. The problem of this mail thread occurs due to bfd->section_count changes. Therefore I find it as an unrelated issue. Thanks, Jan