From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32109 invoked by alias); 1 Sep 2010 18:38:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 32085 invoked by uid 22791); 1 Sep 2010 18:38:00 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.1 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; Wed, 01 Sep 2010 18:37:56 +0000 Received: from int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.16]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o81Ibq96019492 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 1 Sep 2010 14:37:52 -0400 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o81IbnSZ011564; Wed, 1 Sep 2010 14:37:49 -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 o81IbmTA015075; Wed, 1 Sep 2010 14:37:48 -0400 Received: by opsy.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id 052CC378480; Wed, 1 Sep 2010 12:37:47 -0600 (MDT) From: Tom Tromey To: Doug Evans Cc: sami wagiaalla , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Regression for gdb.stabs/gdb11479.exp [Re: [patch 1/2] Use custom hash function with bcache] References: <4C6946E1.6000709@redhat.com> <4C6D5C83.3050602@redhat.com> <4C756132.5050301@redhat.com> <20100901082539.GA24609@host1.dyn.jankratochvil.net> <20100901161952.GX2986@adacore.com> <20100901164716.GY2986@adacore.com> <4C7E96FA.2080209@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2010 18:38:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: (Doug Evans's message of "Wed, 1 Sep 2010 11:23:54 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (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: 2010-09/txt/msg00039.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Doug" == Doug Evans writes: Doug> One would expect the original code to have done a memset too, instead Doug> of using "static". Presumably it didn't for performance reasons. Do Doug> we know if the performance concerns were real? No, we don't know. It is safest to just revert to what it was before. The end of the previous thread is here http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2009-11/msg00104.html Tom