From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20464 invoked by alias); 27 Sep 2013 15:50:27 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 20448 invoked by uid 89); 27 Sep 2013 15:50:27 -0000 Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Fri, 27 Sep 2013 15:50:27 +0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=2.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPAM_SUBJECT autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com 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 r8RFoLuO017878 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 27 Sep 2013 11:50:22 -0400 Received: from blade.nx (ovpn-116-89.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.89]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r8RFoKVF010704; Fri, 27 Sep 2013 11:50:21 -0400 Received: by blade.nx (Postfix, from userid 1000) id CD126264AA8; Fri, 27 Sep 2013 16:50:19 +0100 (BST) Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 15:50:00 -0000 From: Gary Benson To: Yao Qi Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] Test on solib load and unload Message-ID: <20130927155019.GA15969@blade.nx> Mail-Followup-To: Yao Qi , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <1380119209-25975-1-git-send-email-yao@codesourcery.com> <1380119209-25975-4-git-send-email-yao@codesourcery.com> <20130927135957.GE6993@blade.nx> <5245A12C.70501@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5245A12C.70501@codesourcery.com> X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2013-09/txt/msg00964.txt.bz2 Yao Qi wrote: > On 09/27/2013 09:59 PM, Gary Benson wrote: > > I'm not sure how important this is, but this test is profiling both > > load and unload. It's theoretically possible that a change could be > > made that improved one phase while degrading the other, so it would > > be nice to see separate timings if that's not too hard to implement. > > For the avoidance of doubt I don't consider the absence of separate > > timings a blocker. > > It shouldn't be hard to implement. Probably, we can split class > SolibLoadUnload into two classes and each class is to measure load > and unload respectively. Awesome :) Cheers, Gary -- http://gbenson.net/