Re: suggestion for dictionary representation

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>]

On Tue, Sep 24, 2002 at 09:19:54AM -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> 
> 
> On Tue, 24 Sep 2002, Jim Blandy wrote:
> 
> > 
> > > Also, for what it's worth, I'm still not ready to completely give up
> > > on representing members of classes via a dictionary; that would
> > > provide another place where a linear dictionary environment could be
> > > useful.
> > 
> > I agree, but it's worth noting that `struct symbol' is 52 bytes long
> > on a Pentium, whereas `struct field' and `struct fn_field' are 16
> > bytes long.  
> > 
> > Not that that necessarily matters.  We know GDB does have memory
> > consumption problems, but I have never seen those problems really
> > analyzed. 
> 
> Um, I have these statistics, but I need to know *exactly* what you want to 
> know to be able to give them to you.
> There's just too many combinations to make a nice table or something.
> Even something like STABS vs DWARF2 has too many combinations because 
> it changes with each GCC version, and even sometimes with binutils 
> versions.
> 
> > All the memory could be in physnames, for all we know. 
> In general, DWARF2 C++ apps, a lot of it is.

I'm actually making good progress on cutting down our physname use.  It
would help if someone commented on the testsuite framework I posted
last week... that's my next step.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer