From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21581 invoked by alias); 10 Jun 2003 15:58:17 -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 21519 invoked from network); 10 Jun 2003 15:58:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO smtp4.Stanford.EDU) (171.67.16.29) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 10 Jun 2003 15:58:15 -0000 Received: (from root@localhost) by smtp4.Stanford.EDU (8.12.9/8.12.9) id h5AFwE78009116 for gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com; Tue, 10 Jun 2003 08:58:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jackfruit.Stanford.EDU (jackfruit.Stanford.EDU [171.64.38.136]) by smtp4.Stanford.EDU (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h5AFw9Tc009036; Tue, 10 Jun 2003 08:58:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from carlton@localhost) by jackfruit.Stanford.EDU (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5AFw8K04532; Tue, 10 Jun 2003 08:58:08 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: jackfruit.Stanford.EDU: carlton set sender to carlton@math.stanford.edu using -f To: Elena Zannoni Cc: Joel Brobecker , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, Jim Blandy Subject: Re: [rfa] struct dictionary References: <16101.3585.739945.993550@localhost.redhat.com> <20030609225505.GA12898@nevyn.them.org> <20030610000524.GS947@gnat.com> <16101.9895.845174.90842@localhost.redhat.com> From: David Carlton Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 15:58:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <16101.9895.845174.90842@localhost.redhat.com> 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: 2003-06/txt/msg00325.txt.bz2 On Mon, 9 Jun 2003 20:30:31 -0400, Elena Zannoni said: > Joel Brobecker writes: >> > > Does anybody have a setup for testing mdebug? Daniel? >> > >> > Not me. Joel might? Since OSF/Tru64 is about the only thing left >> > using it that we care about... >> >> We have a Tru64 machine, but no C++ compiler... Is this still ok? > yes, this is generic stuff. Even though maybe some c++ symbols would > make any performance difference more pronounced. The important > change is the removal of the sorting for the symbol lists. No, it will be fine performance-wise: I replaced the sorted lists by hash tables. I'm just worried about correctness for mdebugread.c: I had to touch it in enough places that I might have screwed up everything and GDB will die a horrible death somewhere. David Carlton carlton@math.stanford.edu