From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24794 invoked by alias); 4 Jun 2012 15:03:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 24769 invoked by uid 22791); 4 Jun 2012 15:03:24 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,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, 04 Jun 2012 15:03:07 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q54F35Rt028870 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 4 Jun 2012 11:03:05 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q54F34Mb025510; Mon, 4 Jun 2012 11:03:04 -0400 Message-ID: <4FCCCE27.2060804@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2012 15:03:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120430 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Doug Evans CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, ratmice@gmail.com Subject: Re: [RFA] massively speed up "info var foo" on large programs References: <20120524175852.D38381E139C@ruffy2.mtv.corp.google.com> <4FBF47DD.4030100@redhat.com> <4FC91A33.5040900@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: 2012-06/txt/msg00082.txt.bz2 On 06/04/2012 05:06 AM, Doug Evans wrote: > GDB's symbol support is a mess (IMO), and I wanted > a name and usage to restrict it to the task at hand. Anything more > general and I was pretty sure this patch would get bogged down. That'd be a bit beyond what I requested. ;-) > Later on I want to revamp the symbol API, but I don't want this patch > tied down by that. Certainly. That'd clearly need to be a separate change. > (For example, I don't want to bubble up the semantics of > demangle_for_lookup to the caller of this function. Here we have an > msymbol, we know we have a mangled name. If you want, I can go with > lookup_symbol_in_objfile but rename it to > lookup_symbol_in_objfile_from_linkage_name or some such.) That'd be fine with me. Thanks. -- Pedro Alves