From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28391 invoked by alias); 12 May 2009 20:53:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 28383 invoked by uid 22791); 12 May 2009 20:53:25 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SARE_MSGID_LONG40,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp-out.google.com (HELO smtp-out.google.com) (216.239.33.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 12 May 2009 20:53:20 +0000 Received: from wpaz37.hot.corp.google.com (wpaz37.hot.corp.google.com [172.24.198.101]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id n4CKrGaD017592 for ; Tue, 12 May 2009 21:53:16 +0100 Received: from qw-out-1920.google.com (qwj9.prod.google.com [10.241.195.73]) by wpaz37.hot.corp.google.com with ESMTP id n4CKrEAW030816 for ; Tue, 12 May 2009 13:53:15 -0700 Received: by qw-out-1920.google.com with SMTP id 9so167757qwj.46 for ; Tue, 12 May 2009 13:53:14 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.229.82.75 with SMTP id a11mr191925qcl.40.1242161594497; Tue, 12 May 2009 13:53:14 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20090512082530.GD7584@adacore.com> References: <8ac60eac0905051749p3b5d14d9q8903b9de8e18137f@mail.gmail.com> <20090512082530.GD7584@adacore.com> Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 20:53:00 -0000 Message-ID: <8ac60eac0905121353i4aae7110sebb34bec1de0d6d8@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: [patch] Eliminate quadratic slow-down on number of solibs (part 2). From: Paul Pluzhnikov To: Joel Brobecker Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Tom Tromey Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-System-Of-Record: true 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: 2009-05/txt/msg00254.txt.bz2 On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 1:25 AM, Joel Brobecker wrote: >> It feels like a hack, but I don't see how to achieve the same >> result in a cleaner way :-( > > But I'm sympathetic to the issue - it's tough to have to wait > an extra 20secs Or extra 2 minutes in my case :-( > when you know that you don't have any breakpoint > refering to any SO... My thoughts on this: Perhaps a setting > in the "maintenance set/show" that the user could change to deactivate > breakpoint reset. Note that the gdb-breakpoint-20090505.txt patch did not deactivate breakpoint reset. It merely turned an O(N*N) operation into O(N) operation, by resetting breakpoints once, after all solib symbols have been loaded. Because of that, your "maintenance set ..." suggestion doesn't make sense to me: why would you ever want O(N*N) algorithm when an O(N) one is available? Thanks, -- Paul Pluzhnikov