From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Eli Zaretskii" To: ac131313@cygnus.com Cc: dan@cgsoftware.com, jason-swarelist@molenda.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] bug in symtab.c:lookup_block_symbol()'s search method Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 09:06:00 -0000 Message-id: <9003-Fri14Sep2001190223+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il> References: <20010909074800.A8112@shell17.ba.best.com> <3B9D054A.4C3CC2B1@cygnus.com> <20010910113226.A23487@shell17.ba.best.com> <87zo82swwa.fsf@cgsoftware.com> <20010910130347.A5628@shell17.ba.best.com> <8766aq7nki.fsf@cgsoftware.com> <3BA219EF.3000300@cygnus.com> X-SW-Source: 2001-09/msg00181.html > Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 10:53:35 -0400 > From: Andrew Cagney > > >> IMNSHO gdb 5.1 can not be released with the symbol binary search > >> lookup broken as it has been for the last year. > > > > Broken? > > You mean slower. > > It works *correctly*, just not as *efficiently* as it could. > > Big difference. > > gdb is measured against many criteria, one is performance. if gdb's > performance drops, gdb has regressed. some would describe it as broken. Some would describe this a broken, but most reasonable people (including you, Andrew ;-) probably won't. I agree with Dan here: I don't think this specific issue can be a valid reason for saying that GDB is ``broken'' and that ``gdb 5.1 can not be released'' in its current shape.