From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Andrew Cagney Cc: Kevin Buettner , gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: gdb and dlopen Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 17:05:00 -0000 Message-id: <20011017200554.A28537@nevyn.them.org> References: <20011016161525.A1241@nevyn.them.org> <20011016213252.A8694@nevyn.them.org> <20011016220353.A9538@nevyn.them.org> <3BCCF83F.8010401@cygnus.com> <20011017010849.A23345@nevyn.them.org> <20011017011923.A27536@nevyn.them.org> <1011017220745.ZM5792@ocotillo.lan> <3BCE0CA6.3040302@cygnus.com> X-SW-Source: 2001-10/msg00186.html On Wed, Oct 17, 2001 at 06:56:38PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > >On Oct 17, 1:19am, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > > > > >>Amusingly, there are something like eight million calls to > >>ptid_get_pid. I'll send along a trivial patch to shrink the worst > >>offenders. I understand the opacity that functions over macros is > >>going for here, but a function that does 'return a.b;' and gets called > >>eight MILLION times is a little bit absurd, don't you think? Absurd > >>enough that it shows up as the second highest item on the profile. > > > > > >It's a shame that we can't use inline functions... > > Remember, ptid_get_pid() is the messenger. The real problem is > elsewhere. A bit like STREQ() in the symtab code. I don't understand what you mean by this. We certainly need to get at the actual PID everywhere PIDGET () is being used, regardless of whether it could be hoisted out of loops. -- Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer