From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26090 invoked by alias); 16 Aug 2010 20:11:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 26066 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Aug 2010 20:11:32 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 16 Aug 2010 20:11:25 +0000 Received: from int-mx08.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx08.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.21]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o7GKBOpn013685 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Mon, 16 Aug 2010 16:11:24 -0400 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx08.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o7GKBNrL023543 for ; Mon, 16 Aug 2010 16:11:24 -0400 Received: from [10.15.16.129] (dhcp-10-15-16-129.yyz.redhat.com [10.15.16.129]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o7GKBMIk013957 for ; Mon, 16 Aug 2010 16:11:23 -0400 Message-ID: <4C699B55.5000601@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 20:11:00 -0000 From: sami wagiaalla User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.7) Gecko/20100720 Fedora/3.1.1-1.fc13 Thunderbird/3.1.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Use custom hash function with bcache References: <4C6946E1.6000709@redhat.com> <20100816191348.GA16221@caradoc.them.org> <4C699679.6090209@redhat.com> <20100816200325.GA19823@caradoc.them.org> In-Reply-To: <20100816200325.GA19823@caradoc.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes 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 X-SW-Source: 2010-08/txt/msg00245.txt.bz2 On 08/16/2010 04:03 PM, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 03:50:17PM -0400, sami wagiaalla wrote: >> I only took into consideration the values which are set by >> add_psymbol_to_bcache. The assumption is that these are the only >> values that will make a difference since they are the only values >> available when calculating the hash. > > Interesting, I didn't remember about add_psymbol_to_bcache. I'd > better back up - what are you accomplishing by this change? > A previous patch of mine introduced a bcache regression :D. The patch made cplus_specifc a pointer to an allocated struct. This is because we wanted to store more information in cplus_specific without penalizing the other other languages. With cplus_specific being a pointer hashing the whole symbol didn't work anymore. This patch is an attempt to fix that.