From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-88047-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 6203 invoked by alias); 20 Feb 2012 21:24:49 -0000
Received: (qmail 6187 invoked by uid 22791); 20 Feb 2012 21:24:48 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.0 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, 20 Feb 2012 21:24:36 +0000
Received: from int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.25])	by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q1KLOZFT012521	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK)	for <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 16:24:36 -0500
Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199])	by int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q1KLOZOh001885;	Mon, 20 Feb 2012 16:24:35 -0500
Received: from barimba (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1])	by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q1KLOYxi012661;	Mon, 20 Feb 2012 16:24:34 -0500
From: Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com>
To: Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com>
Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: FYI: fix some performance bugs with .gdb_index
References: <87pqd9uthn.fsf@fleche.redhat.com>	<20120220205336.GB15256@host2.jankratochvil.net>
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 22:01:00 -0000
In-Reply-To: <20120220205336.GB15256@host2.jankratochvil.net> (Jan	Kratochvil's message of "Mon, 20 Feb 2012 21:53:36 +0100")
Message-ID: <87haylurjh.fsf@fleche.redhat.com>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.93 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2012-02/txt/msg00419.txt.bz2

>>>>> "Jan" == Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com> writes:

Jan> On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 21:42:28 +0100, Tom Tromey wrote:
>> +      visited_found = htab_create_alloc (10,
>> +					 htab_hash_pointer, htab_eq_pointer,
>> +					 NULL, xcalloc, xfree);
Jan> [...]
>> +      visited_not_found = htab_create_alloc (10,
>> +					     htab_hash_pointer, htab_eq_pointer,
>> +					     NULL, xcalloc, xfree);
Jan> [...]
>> +  htab_t visited = htab_create_alloc (10, htab_hash_pointer, htab_eq_pointer,
>> +				      NULL, xcalloc, xfree);

Jan> Just wouldn't be obstack + hashtab_obstack_allocate more
Jan> appropriate here?

I don't think it would make a very big difference.

Tom