From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25027 invoked by alias); 6 Jul 2010 17:31:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 25019 invoked by uid 22791); 6 Jul 2010 17:31:17 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.0 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; Tue, 06 Jul 2010 17:31:12 +0000 Received: from int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.17]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o66HVANh012562 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Tue, 6 Jul 2010 13:31:10 -0400 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o66HVARu010281; Tue, 6 Jul 2010 13:31:10 -0400 Received: from opsy.redhat.com (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 o66HV9s2018866; Tue, 6 Jul 2010 13:31:09 -0400 Received: by opsy.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id 1C6E13784BE; Tue, 6 Jul 2010 11:31:09 -0600 (MDT) From: Tom Tromey To: Jan Kratochvil Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [3/4] RFC: add DWARF index support References: <20100704181758.GA30603@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> <20100706171142.GA24412@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2010 17:31:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20100706171142.GA24412@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> (Jan Kratochvil's message of "Tue, 6 Jul 2010 19:11:42 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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: 2010-07/txt/msg00097.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Jan" == Jan Kratochvil writes: Jan> Frankly, I do not want to reinvent the optimizations for tiny, Jan> small, medium, compact, large and huge memory models. :-) Any size Jan> should be 64bit and it is a bug if it is not. I agree that this was not a great choice for obstacks. It just seems unlikely to me that we will be able to get this change in. Don't we actually have to change it in glibc? This is why I assumed we would be better off looking at a different solution. Jan> I was reluctant to make review notes on more places using `int' Jan> memory sizes in your patch. I'll take a look. Tom