Re: [RFA] delete BLOCK_SHOULD_SORT

[David Carlton <carlton@math.stanford.edu>]

On Thu, 19 Sep 2002 01:04:10 -0700, "Paul N. Hilfinger" <hilfingr@otisco.mckusick.com> said:

> OK; let me explain what Ada is up to in the various places it does
> symbol lookup, and you can decide if we (ahem) need a conversation
> on this (vis-a-vis this thread or the other "dictionary" threads),
> or if our needs introduce no new requirements.
...
> The second pattern, however, can benefit for sorted blocks in an
> obvious way--- hence the ada-lang.c code you mentioned in an earlier
> message---but doesn't need them.  That is, we take advantage of
> BLOCK_SHOULD_SORT when possible.  I don't have measurements of the
> impact of not having it.

I see; thanks for the explanation.  Then I agree with Daniel: it
should probably be converted to search_symbols, and removing
BLOCK_SHOULD_SORT won't hurt you: the performance gains that you had
been getting were already lost in the earlier conversion from sorted
lists to hashtables, unless the debugging info happens to be in ECOFF
format.  So the only question is whether or not I slipped up when
converting those loops to ALL_BLOCK_SYMBOLS.

David Carlton
carlton@math.stanford.edu