From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id eEgCC132rmOKLQwAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Fri, 30 Dec 2022 09:31:57 -0500 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id 29F951E222; Fri, 30 Dec 2022 09:31:57 -0500 (EST) Authentication-Results: simark.ca; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; secure) header.d=sourceware.org header.i=@sourceware.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=default header.b=gBE17C5L; dkim-atps=neutral X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 Received: from sourceware.org (server2.sourceware.org [8.43.85.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CD3F91E112 for ; Fri, 30 Dec 2022 09:31:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C96D385840F for ; Fri, 30 Dec 2022 14:31:55 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 9C96D385840F DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1672410715; bh=6n2aY69pnCtyVfq1KkYfiHzRj8W0kv8of9GcPrW5dKs=; h=Date:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:Subject:References:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe: From:Reply-To:From; b=gBE17C5L3JB3stCpn6SoQsnAM42sisdLFIrwOf2rFv9OVKBrcAPSv/W7rAINMl/oL RVvkbndJaveKie9Zzj0yl+8NsVyWqvybROEf2Pvi5ky+twCpV1Ui45R6JvnHXWPGLx LFCC2sRmY5cPQKHrsSLYR+08U+d3GOJkZMOFcj6s= Received: from eggs.gnu.org (eggs.gnu.org [IPv6:2001:470:142:3::10]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EFF093858CDA for ; Fri, 30 Dec 2022 14:31:35 +0000 (GMT) Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pBGQ2-0003KL-78; Fri, 30 Dec 2022 09:31:34 -0500 Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pBGQ1-0007k9-Nt; Fri, 30 Dec 2022 09:31:34 -0500 Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2022 16:31:31 +0200 Message-Id: <835ydt6jzw.fsf@gnu.org> To: Simon Marchi Cc: tom@tromey.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org, luis.machado@arm.com In-Reply-To: <587b899f-0f93-530a-7313-d4e1f9e501b9@simark.ca> (message from Simon Marchi on Thu, 29 Dec 2022 15:22:31 -0500) Subject: Re: Two observations using GDB 13 snapshot References: <83h6xugc5v.fsf@gnu.org> <58b64bf8-90b6-d080-c060-d03761501199@arm.com> <83k02neezy.fsf@gnu.org> <835ye7e9jw.fsf@gnu.org> <87h6xrks77.fsf@tromey.com> <83mt7idacj.fsf@gnu.org> <87fsd4elb2.fsf@tromey.com> <83o7rs4qmg.fsf@gnu.org> <87cz84dasj.fsf@tromey.com> <835ydw20bw.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn6bbi5m.fsf@tromey.com> <83sfgz8m9i.fsf@gnu.org> <87o7rnb0ya.fsf@tromey.com> <83a6368chf.fsf@gnu.org> <87k02aaxc8.fsf@tromey.com> <83wn6a6n21.fsf@gnu.org> <587b899f-0f93-530a-7313-d4e1f9e501b9@simark.ca> X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Eli Zaretskii via Gdb-patches Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii Errors-To: gdb-patches-bounces+public-inbox=simark.ca@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb-patches" > Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2022 15:22:31 -0500 > Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, luis.machado@arm.com > From: Simon Marchi > > > It looks like we spend a lot of time sorting the vector of index > entries. We spend a lot of time in tolower. Why do we need to use tolower in sorting here? is the sorting order case-insensitive or something? > Googling a bit, it looks > like tolower can be slow on Windows when a locale (other than "C") is > used: > > https://stackoverflow.com/questions/36686381/windows-c-runtime-toupper-slow-when-locale-set > https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=45265 I couldn't see any numbers there about the performance of tolower itself, i.e. how many ms per call does it take on Windows vs glibc. But if someone can show a patch to try to eliminate the calls to tolower, I can try and see if it affects the processing time in this scenario. Thanks.