From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29743 invoked by alias); 22 Dec 2014 12:48:36 -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 29729 invoked by uid 89); 22 Dec 2014 12:48:36 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: rock.gnat.com Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Mon, 22 Dec 2014 12:48:34 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1C7C11633A; Mon, 22 Dec 2014 07:48:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id WRyxXdmrkEuX; Mon, 22 Dec 2014 07:48:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD7DE1162CD; Mon, 22 Dec 2014 07:48:32 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 8BF9C48812; Mon, 22 Dec 2014 07:48:33 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2014 12:48:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Doug Evans Cc: Eli Zaretskii , "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH] symbol lookup cache Message-ID: <20141222124833.GO12884@adacore.com> References: <83d27esisa.fsf@gnu.org> <83k31mqeoa.fsf@gnu.org> <83egrtr80o.fsf@gnu.org> <20141221210151.GL12884@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-SW-Source: 2014-12/txt/msg00606.txt.bz2 > But, *if* one-size-fits-all *wasn't* working (*1), and I think I can > reasonably assume we're agreed we're not there yet, then would you > immediately go the route of providing a user option to allow changing > the size, or first see if gdb could do better on its own? > > --- > (*1): I'm only suggesting exploring dynamically adjusting the cache > size (I realize you wrote hash size) *if* the data suggests we need > it. IMO we're not there yet. But, and here's where the disagreement > is (AFAICT), *if* we do get there, I'd rather see if gdb could do > better on its own first, before adding a knob that the user has to > tweak to get the desired performance. On that, I don't really have an opinion, at least not yet; and since I don't see us getting there, I propose we do not decide now :). -- Joel