From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 129723 invoked by alias); 19 Jun 2017 10:03:04 -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 127950 invoked by uid 89); 19 Jun 2017 10:03:03 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=complicating 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 ESMTP; Mon, 19 Jun 2017 10:03:02 +0000 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.13]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DBADF85359 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2017 10:03:05 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com DBADF85359 Authentication-Results: ext-mx01.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: ext-mx01.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=jan.kratochvil@redhat.com DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mx1.redhat.com DBADF85359 Received: from host1.jankratochvil.net (ovpn-116-67.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.67]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2926817CDC; Mon, 19 Jun 2017 10:03:04 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2017 10:03:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Pedro Alves Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Regression: Re: [PATCH 2/6] Code cleanup: dwarf2read.c: Eliminate ::file_write Message-ID: <20170619100302.GA25357@host1.jankratochvil.net> References: <8efc0742-1014-4fe0-6948-f40a9c5c4975@redhat.com> <1497284051-13795-2-git-send-email-palves@redhat.com> <20170618183603.GA1834@host1.jankratochvil.net> <0d3d940c-c6d6-02df-69a0-defdd300f92f@redhat.com> <20170619093927.GA24763@host1.jankratochvil.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.8.0 (2017-02-23) X-SW-Source: 2017-06/txt/msg00502.txt.bz2 On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 11:47:51 +0200, Pedro Alves wrote: > But as I said, it can't be exactly the > same as the original one, because it simply wouldn't compile. I haven't found a benchmark whether the gdb::byte_vector optimization was really worth complicating the codebase. GDB has more serious performance problems than such microoptimizations. One of the goals of the move to C++ was to remove all the GDB-specific language constructs making it easier to contribute. Now GDB is becoming written in its own language again, just based on C++ this time. Jan