From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>
To: Daniel Berlin <dan@cgsoftware.com>
Cc: Jason Molenda <jason-swarelist@molenda.com>, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [RFA] bug in symtab.c:lookup_block_symbol()'s search method
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 07:53:00 -0000
Message-id: <3BA219EF.3000300@cygnus.com>
References: <20010909074800.A8112@shell17.ba.best.com> <3B9D054A.4C3CC2B1@cygnus.com> <20010910113226.A23487@shell17.ba.best.com> <87zo82swwa.fsf@cgsoftware.com> <20010910130347.A5628@shell17.ba.best.com> <8766aq7nki.fsf@cgsoftware.com>
X-SW-Source: 2001-09/msg00179.html

>> IMNSHO gdb 5.1 can not be released with the symbol binary search
>> lookup broken as it has been for the last year.
> 
> Broken?
> You mean slower.
> It works *correctly*, just not as *efficiently* as it could.
> Big difference.

gdb is measured against many criteria, one is performance.  if gdb's 
performance drops, gdb has regressed.  some would describe it as broken.

in some some situtations - replacing a macro by a function say - such a 
regression is considered acceptable.  in other cases - such as an 
algorithm change that is ment to improve performance - it is not.

andrew