From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7990 invoked by alias); 28 May 2013 17:40:34 -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 7980 invoked by uid 89); 28 May 2013 17:40:33 -0000 X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-4.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 Received: from mail-vc0-f180.google.com (HELO mail-vc0-f180.google.com) (209.85.220.180) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.84/v0.84-167-ge50287c) with ESMTP; Tue, 28 May 2013 17:40:32 +0000 Received: by mail-vc0-f180.google.com with SMTP id gd11so5724580vcb.11 for ; Tue, 28 May 2013 10:40:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=3Yb9a2sTazkLicmECaGc3B3oAg3iv1rqwsHKbPeUWGg=; b=pEgQRcSr89M48oKtsS7dOXAUgbA2SnBBsCCgnSTDmNMbHjy8i62JDxPyD8gDVpe9WQ RT+PXputSVMTq6XqPdITwFN2PEAu4wlQbaKIXKp3zcNYNDEYvQTxB3x/EhBnEQFqQIG4 ZOQhbogIAT8BxNvc1AUdcQ+r2CwIQvA1P53EdNJw7zFmsjzMsfwQqMfZTtrVvyIPouUa antmUHz0HBvAY3Weo2xHczQrncZ/kgdnvdakuccrDFdo9oQmnlyVkUwxBJwjkOXL7nPN gN7koCBoRDw+8z+Cl+KXqylPQWhknazOtUbhGCSKIV4m6bIm2H2PSa9pYNVq9MACMnxb sACg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.52.52.162 with SMTP id u2mr5538112vdo.54.1369762831150; Tue, 28 May 2013 10:40:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.54.206 with HTTP; Tue, 28 May 2013 10:40:30 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1369762373.3295.20.camel@pdsdesk> References: <1368733335.4101.743.camel@pdsdesk> <51960329.2010802@redhat.com> <1369248335.7209.151.camel@homebase> <1369250399.7209.164.camel@homebase> <87wqqqg4e2.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <1369264444.7209.184.camel@homebase> <1369284101.7209.197.camel@homebase> <1369762373.3295.20.camel@pdsdesk> Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 17:40:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [GDB 7.6/GCC 4.8.0] Slowdown in GDB macro processing for cores? From: Doug Evans To: psmith@gnu.org Cc: Tom Tromey , Pedro Alves , gdb Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmr1QyHcB26eRcXjwfLW7QefiDTrF8xIjchoWjHcFrgZmweCVzLiYz7339TTOKS4MNKu/U+aBEwQgo4zeP6sMw4LlmoeMudXmb1WPaDnPNI+aHlugggvF0es4vBXS0BJTn3UHSJwJBewXFHtXnWHiPDMcmtDNdU3oovS8+qBaQJTsK6DRi5KmBggJ7Sge4xcN7i2ydG X-SW-Source: 2013-05/txt/msg00124.txt.bz2 On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 10:32 AM, Paul Smith wrote: > On Tue, 2013-05-28 at 10:10 -0700, Doug Evans wrote: >> And I can't offhand explain why you *only* see the slowdown with a >> core file and not with a live executable. > > Well, just because we haven't found a way to make it happen with live > debugging doesn't mean it couldn't :-). Indeed. >> I wasn't aware of the problems with the 12/11/16 patch you found. >> I've submitted a minor improvement - IMO the real fix will involve a >> lot more effort - gdb's symbol handling is obtuse enough that it's >> easy to introduce performance regressions or even overlook basic >> performance problems. > > I'll try the latest Git to see if it makes a difference. I'd be curious for before/after data with this patch: http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2013-05/msg00964.html I doubt it fixes everything, or even a lot of it. But data is good.