From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-return-14985-listarch-gdb=sources.redhat.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 1036 invoked by alias); 31 Jul 2003 18:29:34 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 32430 invoked from network); 31 Jul 2003 18:29:00 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO rwcrmhc11.comcast.net) (204.127.198.35)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 31 Jul 2003 18:29:00 -0000
Received: from lucon.org ([12.234.88.5]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc11) with ESMTP
          id <2003073118285801300ov4b1e>; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 18:28:58 +0000
Received: by lucon.org (Postfix, from userid 1000)
	id 255102C4EB; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 18:28:57 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 18:29:00 -0000
From: "H. J. Lu" <hjl@lucon.org>
To: GDB <gdb@sources.redhat.com>
Subject: Re: A hack for DW_FORM_ref_addr
Message-ID: <20030731182857.GB14520@lucon.org>
References: <20030730214252.GA26082@lucon.org> <20030730214503.GA15350@nevyn.them.org> <20030730215227.GA26318@lucon.org> <20030730215509.GA15640@nevyn.them.org> <20030731051653.GB1170@lucon.org> <20030731161619.GA12251@lucon.org> <20030731182219.GA9271@nevyn.them.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20030731182219.GA9271@nevyn.them.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
X-SW-Source: 2003-07/txt/msg00376.txt.bz2

On Thu, Jul 31, 2003 at 02:22:19PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 31, 2003 at 09:16:19AM -0700, H. J. Lu wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 30, 2003 at 10:16:53PM -0700, H. J. Lu wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > While waiting for your new DWARF reader, I will see how my hack
> > > > > goes :-(.
> > > > 
> > > > Since the die table is hashed by offset (isn't it?), presumably very
> > > > badly.
> > > 
> > > It is OK for different compilation units within the same .debug_info
> > > section.
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > FYI, this is the hack I am going to try.
> 
> It may be safe, but it's unacceptable.  Take a look at the memory usage
> requirements for -readnow, if libc.so.6 has debugging information. 
> You've just eaten probably 200MB of RAM.
> 

Since DW_FORM_ref_addr requires it, I don't see there is an easy way
out. I guess I could only save those used by DW_FORM_ref_addr.


H.J.