From: Jim Blandy <jimb@redhat.com>
To: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [RFA/dwarf] Optimize partial DIE reading for uninteresting DIEs
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 00:09:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <vt21xo0iwf2.fsf@zenia.home> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20040309195806.GA18334@nevyn.them.org>
Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org> writes:
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 10:03:10PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 09:58:32PM -0500, Jim Blandy wrote:
> > > It would be interesting to compare profiling results between two GDB's
> > > that differ only in whether they use your attribute skipper or the
> > > attribute value reader.
> >
> > For this patch, the changes were pretty small. For the larger change,
> > with just partial symbol table reading, read_unsigned_leb128 dropped
> > way down and skip_leb128 didn't climb equally far up.
> >
> > Let me reproduce those results, though. Something seems suspicious.
>
> Nah, seems good, although the difference is just a few percent at most;
> I trust from my earlier measurements that it will make more of a
> difference down the road. I've checked this in to HEAD.
Okay, sounds good.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID
From: Jim Blandy <jimb@redhat.com>
To: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [RFA/dwarf] Optimize partial DIE reading for uninteresting DIEs
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 14:56:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <vt21xo0iwf2.fsf@zenia.home> (raw)
Message-ID: <20040310145600.GNLPaM9hlzGMXGTFubVFKgJYwVRor7HO4s2wKYphCq8@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20040309195806.GA18334@nevyn.them.org>
Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org> writes:
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 10:03:10PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 09:58:32PM -0500, Jim Blandy wrote:
> > > It would be interesting to compare profiling results between two GDB's
> > > that differ only in whether they use your attribute skipper or the
> > > attribute value reader.
> >
> > For this patch, the changes were pretty small. For the larger change,
> > with just partial symbol table reading, read_unsigned_leb128 dropped
> > way down and skip_leb128 didn't climb equally far up.
> >
> > Let me reproduce those results, though. Something seems suspicious.
>
> Nah, seems good, although the difference is just a few percent at most;
> I trust from my earlier measurements that it will make more of a
> difference down the road. I've checked this in to HEAD.
Okay, sounds good.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-03-10 14:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-02-25 3:06 Daniel Jacobowitz
2004-02-26 22:28 ` Jim Blandy
2004-02-26 23:12 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2004-02-27 2:58 ` Jim Blandy
2004-02-27 3:03 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2004-03-19 0:09 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2004-03-09 19:58 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2004-03-19 0:09 ` Jim Blandy [this message]
2004-03-10 14:56 ` Jim Blandy
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=vt21xo0iwf2.fsf@zenia.home \
--to=jimb@redhat.com \
--cc=drow@false.org \
--cc=gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox