From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8384 invoked by alias); 25 Sep 2002 12:54:40 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 8264 invoked from network); 25 Sep 2002 12:54:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 25 Sep 2002 12:54:39 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 17uCcO-0004am-00; Wed, 25 Sep 2002 08:54:20 -0500 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17uBgb-0002ib-00; Wed, 25 Sep 2002 08:54:37 -0400 Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 05:54:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Jim Blandy Cc: Daniel Berlin , david carlton , gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: suggestion for dictionary representation Message-ID: <20020925125436.GA10407@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Jim Blandy , Daniel Berlin , david carlton , gdb@sources.redhat.com References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2002-09/txt/msg00404.txt.bz2 On Tue, Sep 24, 2002 at 10:46:02PM -0500, Jim Blandy wrote: > > Daniel Berlin writes: > > > 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. > > On large C++ programs, how much of a difference would it make if we > used `struct symbol' objects (52 bytes long) to represent data members > and member functions, instead of `struct field' and `struct fn_field' > objects (both 16 bytes long)? I'm not sure this is the way to go - we could have a dictionary of something other than struct symbol, probably. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer