From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24191 invoked by alias); 18 Aug 2003 21:50:43 -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 24173 invoked from network); 18 Aug 2003 21:50:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hawaii.kealia.com) (209.3.10.89) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 18 Aug 2003 21:50:43 -0000 Received: by hawaii.kealia.com (Postfix, from userid 2049) id 7BF68CAF5; Mon, 18 Aug 2003 14:50:42 -0700 (PDT) To: Jim Blandy Cc: Daniel Jacobowitz , 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: David Carlton Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 21:50:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: (Jim Blandy's message of "18 Aug 2003 16:48:48 -0500") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.1002 (Gnus v5.10.2) XEmacs/21.4 (Rational FORTRAN, linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2003-08/txt/msg00313.txt.bz2 On 18 Aug 2003 16:48:48 -0500, Jim Blandy said: > 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? For what it's worth, his test wouldn't have noticed size reduction in struct symbol, only in struct {partial,minimal}_symbol. But 0.6% seems pretty small either way. David Carlton carlton@kealia.com