From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27400 invoked by alias); 22 Jul 2009 17:22:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 27390 invoked by uid 22791); 22 Jul 2009 17:22:28 -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; Wed, 22 Jul 2009 17:22:22 +0000 Received: from spaceape13.eur.corp.google.com (spaceape13.eur.corp.google.com [172.28.16.147]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id n6MHMIxe015952 for ; Wed, 22 Jul 2009 18:22:18 +0100 Received: from qw-out-1920.google.com (qwc5.prod.google.com [10.241.193.133]) by spaceape13.eur.corp.google.com with ESMTP id n6MHMFa0021517 for ; Wed, 22 Jul 2009 10:22:16 -0700 Received: by qw-out-1920.google.com with SMTP id 5so198811qwc.42 for ; Wed, 22 Jul 2009 10:22:15 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.229.91.13 with SMTP id k13mr204356qcm.98.1248283335419; Wed, 22 Jul 2009 10:22:15 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <8ac60eac0907221016j410f890ald54ac66c7c3291f9@mail.gmail.com> References: <8ac60eac0907161724v40e5bd8bg7877d8901b8d7b6e@mail.gmail.com> <8ac60eac0907220849w3add6806h96e3df1d3257ac54@mail.gmail.com> <200907221732.46472.pedro@codesourcery.com> <8ac60eac0907221016j410f890ald54ac66c7c3291f9@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 18:08:00 -0000 Message-ID: <8ac60eac0907221022ma2f2153t4a1c8626f26af552@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: [patch] Speed up find_pc_section From: Paul Pluzhnikov To: Pedro Alves Cc: tromey@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org 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: 2009-07/txt/msg00554.txt.bz2 On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 10:16 AM, Paul Pluzhnikov wrote: > On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 9:32 AM, Pedro Alves wrote: > >> Given the new_objfile observer, do we still need the exec_changed and >> solib observers? > > No, I've removed that (new patch attached). Um, sorry. We don't need exec_changed observer (removed), and perhaps solib_loaded one (I am not 100% sure), but solib_unload observer is still needed, I think. Thanks, -- Paul Pluzhnikov