From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22647 invoked by alias); 27 Sep 2013 15:16:27 -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 22633 invoked by uid 89); 27 Sep 2013 15:16:26 -0000 Received: from relay1.mentorg.com (HELO relay1.mentorg.com) (192.94.38.131) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Fri, 27 Sep 2013 15:16:26 +0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: Yes, score=5.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_40,GARBLED_BODY,RDNS_NONE,SPAM_SUBJECT,SPF_HELO_FAIL autolearn=spam version=3.3.2 X-HELO: relay1.mentorg.com Received: from svr-orw-exc-10.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.98.58]) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1VPZmI-0006yw-Ck from Yao_Qi@mentor.com for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Fri, 27 Sep 2013 08:16:22 -0700 Received: from SVR-ORW-FEM-04.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.97.41]) by SVR-ORW-EXC-10.mgc.mentorg.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 27 Sep 2013 08:16:22 -0700 Received: from qiyao.dyndns.org (147.34.91.1) by svr-orw-fem-04.mgc.mentorg.com (147.34.97.41) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.2.247.3; Fri, 27 Sep 2013 08:16:22 -0700 Message-ID: <5245A12C.70501@codesourcery.com> Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 15:16:00 -0000 From: Yao Qi User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130110 Thunderbird/17.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] Test on solib load and unload References: <1380119209-25975-1-git-send-email-yao@codesourcery.com> <1380119209-25975-4-git-send-email-yao@codesourcery.com> <20130927135957.GE6993@blade.nx> In-Reply-To: <20130927135957.GE6993@blade.nx> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2013-09/txt/msg00961.txt.bz2 On 09/27/2013 09:59 PM, Gary Benson wrote: > I'm not sure how important this is, but this test is profiling both > load and unload. It's theoretically possible that a change could be > made that improved one phase while degrading the other, so it would > be nice to see separate timings if that's not too hard to implement. > For the avoidance of doubt I don't consider the absence of separate > timings a blocker. Gary, It shouldn't be hard to implement. Probably, we can split class SolibLoadUnload into two classes and each class is to measure load and unload respectively. -- Yao (齐尧)