From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22588 invoked by alias); 19 Feb 2004 03:35:45 -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 22578 invoked from network); 19 Feb 2004 03:35:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 19 Feb 2004 03:35:43 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.30 #1 (Debian)) id 1AteyF-0003pD-LC; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 22:35:27 -0500 Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 03:35:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Kip Macy Cc: David Carlton , gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Huge slowdown since 6.0 Message-ID: <20040219033527.GB14471@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Kip Macy , David Carlton , gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <20040218210927.GA16641@nevyn.them.org> <20040218143915.D18075@demos.bsdclusters.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040218143915.D18075@demos.bsdclusters.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2004-02/txt/msg00237.txt.bz2 On Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 02:44:56PM -0800, Kip Macy wrote: > About a year ago our tools person added symbol-caching to our in-house > GDB tree. He happened to use an STL map, although there are certainly > more C-compliant ways. Prior to this change, developers had to use > pointer arithmetic in their macros to avoid repeated lookups or their > macros would run too SLOW. Would symbol-caching be something that would > make sense for mainline GDB? Maybe, but a year or two ago symbol lookup was a whole lot slower than it is now. I suspect it would not make a lot of difference. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer