From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30961 invoked by alias); 4 Dec 2014 19:28:29 -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 30947 invoked by uid 89); 4 Dec 2014 19:28:28 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Thu, 04 Dec 2014 19:28:28 +0000 Received: from int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.27]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id sB4JSN5I020729 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 4 Dec 2014 14:28:23 -0500 Received: from host2.jankratochvil.net (ovpn-116-31.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.31]) by int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id sB4JSJS5004906 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 4 Dec 2014 14:28:21 -0500 Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2014 19:28:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Doug Evans Cc: gdb-patches , Joel Brobecker Subject: Re: [RFC] symbol lookup cache Message-ID: <20141204192819.GA22848@host2.jankratochvil.net> References: <20141204191559.GA10848@host2.jankratochvil.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2014-12/txt/msg00111.txt.bz2 On Thu, 04 Dec 2014 20:24:28 +0100, Doug Evans wrote: > On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 11:15 AM, Jan Kratochvil wrote: > > "Accelerate lookup_symbol_aux_objfile 85x" is so fast in a fraction of second > > because it traverses 146426 symtabs. So 146426 is OK but 1979341 was not (it > > was in some way more than 1979341 before you refactored symtabs). > > Just to make sure I understand correctly, the 85x is dwz-specific, right? Yes, all my numbers are DWZ specific, I have not tested what/if effect it has for non-DWZ inferiors. Jan