From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8788 invoked by alias); 30 Nov 2006 13:57:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 8776 invoked by uid 22791); 30 Nov 2006 13:57:21 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from pas38-1-82-67-71-117.fbx.proxad.net (HELO siegfried.gbfo.org) (82.67.71.117) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 30 Nov 2006 13:57:15 +0000 Received: from erda.mds (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by siegfried.gbfo.org (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id kAUDuttK010011; Thu, 30 Nov 2006 14:56:55 +0100 Received: from localhost (saffroy@localhost) by erda.mds (8.13.6/8.13.6/Submit) with ESMTP id kAUDusHS010008; Thu, 30 Nov 2006 14:56:54 +0100 Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 13:57:00 -0000 From: Jean-Marc Saffroy To: Daniel Jacobowitz cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] gdb script performance In-Reply-To: <20061130031323.GA25957@nevyn.them.org> Message-ID: References: <20061130031323.GA25957@nevyn.them.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed 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: 2006-11/txt/msg00419.txt.bz2 On Wed, 29 Nov 2006, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Thu, Nov 30, 2006 at 01:33:02AM +0100, Jean-Marc Saffroy wrote: >> It seems the patches I posted yesterday on the gdb list have gone >> completely unnoticed, so I guess I should resend them here. > > This is the right list for patches. However, please be patient - there > is a chronic scarcity of reviewers, but we all do what we can. Given your usual responsiveness on the lists, I thought my mail may have been filtered somehow. Thanks for bearing with me! >> This is still unfinished (hooks for invalidating the caches are missing, >> and I'm sure performance can still be enhanced significantly), but before >> going further, I'd like to know how you feel about integrating such >> changes. > > I'm glad to see some of this stuff sped up. However, I'm hopeful that > there's a better way to do it - shouldn't there be a more efficiently > searchable data structure for whatever you're caching in the first > place? > > Maybe there isn't; just thinking out loud. I asked myself the same question, and hoped someone would have the answer here. ;-) For the PC cache, I guess that just about any address can be passed, so I doubt there is much room for improvement (except maybe a cache with more than one entry, should it be useful in some cases, but now it's probably unneeded). For the symbol cache, I think referencing all symbols in a global hash table could be a solution; actually I was surprised there was not one already. That's a more radical solution than my current patch, it could take a fair amount of memory, and also would take me much more time to implement, given that I'm still new to gdb internals. But I'd like this approach too, if it makes things cleaner and yields good performance. -- saffroy@gmail.com