Re: [patch] Performance optimize large bp_location count

[Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com>]

>>>>> "Jan" == Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com> writes:

Jan> Still just this way it was a minimal changeset to get the same user
Jan> experience as the best breakpoints-modifying patch could be.  After
Jan> other parts of GDB (symbol lookups) get accelerated more work may
Jan> be useful on this part.

This sounds reasonable to me.

Tom> I puzzled over the choice of a sorted array here, wondering if there
Tom> were perhaps some better data structure.  A bit of rationale and
Tom> overview in the patch email would go a long way.

Jan> I do not remember it all but probably I just did not consider the
Jan> possibility of an incremental update, I tried the most easy patch
Jan> and it worked.  Different data structure would be more appropriate
Jan> for the incremental update.

Thanks for this and your explanations, they were very useful.

Tom> It isn't obvious to me why this finds the leftmost element when there
Tom> are multiple overlapping ones.  What am I missing?

Jan> Maybe another comment?  (put there one before "if (b->...)")

Thanks.

Jan> 2009-10-14  Jan Kratochvil  <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com>
Jan> 	Performance optimize large bp_location count.
Jan> 	* breakpoint.c (ALL_BP_LOCATIONS_SAFE): Remove.
[...]

Ok.

Tom