From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30161 invoked by alias); 10 Feb 2003 19:14:30 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 30141 invoked from network); 10 Feb 2003 19:14:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO jackfruit.Stanford.EDU) (171.64.38.136) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 10 Feb 2003 19:14:29 -0000 Received: (from carlton@localhost) by jackfruit.Stanford.EDU (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h1AJERm16503; Mon, 10 Feb 2003 11:14:27 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: jackfruit.Stanford.EDU: carlton set sender to carlton@math.stanford.edu using -f To: Daniel Jacobowitz Subject: Re: RFA/symtab: (Almost) always hash blocks when searching them Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <20030209220321.GA19572@nevyn.them.org> From: David Carlton Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 19:14:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20030209220321.GA19572@nevyn.them.org> Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Common Lisp) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2003-02/txt/msg00260.txt.bz2 On Sun, 9 Feb 2003 17:03:21 -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz said: > I'm working on modifying the symbol lookup functions to return > multiple symbols when there are multiple possible matches, and I > didn't want to have to modify all three kinds of binary search in > lookup_block_symbol. First I tried fixing mdebugread.c to generate > hashed blocks properly; it was too messy, and I couldn't build an > mdebug toolchain to test with [mips-ecoff was my best guess, and > it's been broken for months. Part of it was my fault and then GCC > started segfaulting after I fixed that]. For what it's worth (I do realize you've withdrawn your patch), I'm hoping to submit an RFC by the end of February for a plan that will include getting rid of sorted linear blocks. I'm not up for buildsymifying mdebugread.c, but I'm up for doing that amount of cleanup. I haven't looked at your patch, but one piece of trivia that you might want to be aware of if my RFC is rejected and if you have to deal with this again is that Java code will create one block that is a non-sorted linear block but that isn't associated to a function. It's easy to screw that one up without realizing it; if you do, Tom Tromey will get mad at you. :-) David Carlton carlton@math.stanford.edu