From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-18810-listarch-gdb-patches=sourceware.cygnus.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 23301 invoked by alias); 19 Sep 2002 15:04:28 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 23294 invoked from network); 19 Sep 2002 15:04:25 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (216.138.202.10)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 19 Sep 2002 15:04:25 -0000
Received: from ges.redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 707693DB8; Thu, 19 Sep 2002 11:04:23 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <3D89E777.9060500@ges.redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 08:04:00 -0000
From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@ges.redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020824
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>
Cc: Hilfinger@otisco.mckusick.com, carlton@math.stanford.edu,
	gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, aidan@velvet.net, jimb@redhat.com,
	ezannoni@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [RFA] delete BLOCK_SHOULD_SORT
References: <ro1u1knrlkj.fsf@jackfruit.Stanford.EDU> <200209190804.BAA27599@otisco.McKusick.COM> <20020919132923.GA16924@nevyn.them.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SW-Source: 2002-09/txt/msg00484.txt.bz2

> On Thu, Sep 19, 2002 at 01:04:10AM -0700, Paul N. Hilfinger wrote:

> Paul, David,
> 
> I believe that the right thing to do with this code is actually to
> tranform it into calls to search_symbols and let that handle the
> details.  We have a regexp symbol matching interface... and it's not
> significantly slower, given that almost no symbol tables are sorted now
> anyway.

Yes.

If someone comes forward with evidence demonstrating that the lookup is 
a bottle neck, then the symbol database internals can be adjusted to 
address the performance problem.  I don't think core GDB (ignoring 
!@*$(&*#@&$* stabs) should be worried about the table sort order.

David,

Watch out for things like info symbols.  From memory their behavior is 
affected by this - something DanielJ and ElenaZ hit problems with when 
playing with this before.

Andrew