From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25315 invoked by alias); 3 Sep 2009 20:27:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 25303 invoked by uid 22791); 3 Sep 2009 20:27:21 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS 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; Thu, 03 Sep 2009 20:27:14 +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 n83KQUYv022144; Thu, 3 Sep 2009 16:26:30 -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 n83KQTUC022253; Thu, 3 Sep 2009 16:26:30 -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 n83KQSMr005657; Thu, 3 Sep 2009 16:26:29 -0400 Received: by opsy.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id 679BB378242; Thu, 3 Sep 2009 14:26:28 -0600 (MDT) From: Tom Tromey To: Joel Brobecker Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFA/PATCH] PR/9711: quadratic slowdown for deep stack traces References: <20090903183658.GJ4343@adacore.com> Reply-To: tromey@redhat.com Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2009 20:27:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20090903183658.GJ4343@adacore.com> (Joel Brobecker's message of "Thu, 3 Sep 2009 11:36:58 -0700") 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: 2009-09/txt/msg00092.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Joel" == Joel Brobecker writes: Joel> My only complaint with this patch is that it introduces a slight Joel> confusion: The current code says we "cache" all the frames when it Joel> talks about the frame chain corresponding to the backtrace. My patch Joel> introduces a "frame cache". I'm OK with renaming my cache into Joel> something else, but couldn't find a better name. Joel> I'll also attach a couple of files that move the new frame cache Joel> to a different file (frame-cache.c). I think it's cleaner, but the issue Joel> is that we cannot access the frame ID from the frame since struct frame Joel> is opaque. I actually prefer the version where the code is in frame.c, because I think of this cache as an implementation detail of the frame code. But, 6 of one, I'd support either version. Joel> Any suggestion of a new name for my frame_cache? The word "memoize" came to mind. Joel> Any objection to me checking in this patch? Not from me, it seems like a good idea. Tom