From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30102 invoked by alias); 31 Oct 2003 17:29:12 -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 29684 invoked from network); 31 Oct 2003 17:29:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (207.219.125.105) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 31 Oct 2003 17:29:10 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4D832B89; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 12:29:03 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3FA29BDF.1000100@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 17:29:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030820 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: Andrew Cagney , binutils@sources.redhat.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: A gdb+bfd string pool? References: <3FA27C9B.1000702@redhat.com> <20031031151927.GA32700@nevyn.them.org> <3FA283A7.7080706@redhat.com> <20031031155102.GA1102@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-10/txt/msg00349.txt.bz2 >> The interface or the implementation? The bcache interface is focused >> and simple (something that can't be said for that hash table). The >> hashtab could certainly be used in the implementation (as elf-strtab did). > > > So does gdb/symtab.c. > > >> Anyway, back to the question. Does a [global] common pool make sense >> for BFD? > > > Oh, you meant an _instance_, not a data structure. Sorry. More specifically, a single instance. Instead of having something like a per-object file symbol bcache as was done with GDB, there would just be a single global bcache (and it would never shrink). Andrew