From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20856 invoked by alias); 18 Aug 2003 21:47:28 -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 20719 invoked from network); 18 Aug 2003 21:47:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO zenia.home) (12.223.225.216) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 18 Aug 2003 21:47:27 -0000 Received: by zenia.home (Postfix, from userid 5433) id 6231A202C8; Mon, 18 Aug 2003 16:48:48 -0500 (EST) To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: Michael Snyder , Michael Elizabeth Chastain , ezannoni@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, ac131313@redhat.com Subject: Re: [rfa] save space by using enum bitfields References: <200308180700.h7I70nAW028032@duracef.shout.net> <3F413BF4.2070200@redhat.com> <20030818205645.GA5331@nevyn.them.org> From: Jim Blandy Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 21:47:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20030818205645.GA5331@nevyn.them.org> Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2003-08/txt/msg00312.txt.bz2 Daniel Jacobowitz writes: > Well, I'd say that 20% off the size of struct symbol is pretty good. > It makes the idea of unifying our symbol tables to have only one kind > of symbol much more practical. Given that Michael C. says it only saves 0.6% when debugging GDB itself, why do you say the size reductions are significant?