From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29754 invoked by alias); 16 Apr 2002 15:10:14 -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 29736 invoked from network); 16 Apr 2002 15:10:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (24.112.240.27) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 16 Apr 2002 15:10:11 -0000 Received: from cygnus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57BFA3C71; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 11:10:19 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3CBC3EDB.3020300@cygnus.com> Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 08:10:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:0.9.9) Gecko/20020328 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [rfc] Frame based register cache / frame->unwind References: <3CB9ED82.8050007@cygnus.com> <20020414214916.A25012@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-04/txt/msg00265.txt.bz2 > Performance is hard to quantify(1) but looks positive. Using a native >> GDB (not typical for me :-) it appears that each frame is ~2% slower to >> create (``(gdb) up''). Once created, the frame is ~20-25% faster >> (``(gdb) info registers''). > > > You might want to try timing the testsuite with and without this patch > (using /usr/bin/time et al., to get real/user/sys times) and see what > changes. It'll probably be negligible, but you never know. Good point. Negligible. Given the differences were to the order of ~0.01s when native I'm not suprised. Against a remote target is next. Andrew