From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29756 invoked by alias); 21 Nov 2013 17:58:28 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 29742 invoked by uid 89); 21 Nov 2013 17:58:28 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from Unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 17:58:27 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id rALHwIUp024904 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 21 Nov 2013 12:58:18 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id rALHwGNB018132; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 12:58:17 -0500 Message-ID: <528E49B8.8090409@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 17:58:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130625 Thunderbird/17.0.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lgustavo@codesourcery.com CC: "gdb@sourceware.org" , Tom Tromey , "Maciej W. Rozycki" Subject: Re: Unreliable BFD caching heuristic References: <528E454F.6060003@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: <528E454F.6060003@codesourcery.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2013-11/txt/msg00081.txt.bz2 On 11/21/2013 05:39 PM, Luis Machado wrote: > Do you have any proposals on ways to improve this heuristic? Compare st_ino/st_dev, and don't share if the system doesn't provide meaningful bfd_stat data? symfile.c:separate_debug_file_exists does this already, and then does a CRC check if all else fails. Not sure whether the CRC part would be a good idea here. -- Pedro Alves