From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27510 invoked by alias); 23 May 2013 02:44:48 -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 27500 invoked by uid 89); 23 May 2013 02:44:47 -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-ve0-f173.google.com (HELO mail-ve0-f173.google.com) (209.85.128.173) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.84/v0.84-167-ge50287c) with ESMTP; Thu, 23 May 2013 02:44:46 +0000 Received: by mail-ve0-f173.google.com with SMTP id cy12so1981029veb.18 for ; Wed, 22 May 2013 19:44:45 -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=vVdO239DfUNyKTaDXCq71bC1K5WZ7QkG7n4/eExI06o=; b=KwcAkse9kqirCo5Bv1VKt7r80mbBAhA/QURfdC7YkH0AGBEEw2iTb/07rXDC89gxEW Zkt2EUdYHmBBpL9jguU4ScIMM4CTV4AaA/h/+9KrsJeQnrCinI2nqs8SaVHIgLa/wfRq ftcW8eCXXG3sN4qh2H8JC5gsvDH/Fm5/8cNN+Ex6E99xKZz8apdUvKgeM9YgoWEUsET5 PR44SzMCY6Ctk6GYNvIsAcum0ylYAiHxiUm7ednyG8OxFpGTC26X6Qi/LnrAk7Vfc9r5 22n4AnTyFW+Yk7uEVCcCS4TGpIxFdd45m/vdlAdjDa+/FgYMyv2ei3BhVi3eZAiJAfH6 Rf6Q== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.52.16.174 with SMTP id h14mr3313444vdd.59.1369277085200; Wed, 22 May 2013 19:44:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.54.75 with HTTP; Wed, 22 May 2013 19:44:44 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1369264444.7209.184.camel@homebase> 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> Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 02:44:00 -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: ALoCoQnh6kbMonmljEuhWj5bq1l+UiQn7dAlrhg52JqLFCNXZZAPuThkT0/kVIM9gXhD7HzWVqiAC8XCBmhjerL4Mp09QZZ2qxNDRfJg5V2SsLrRIqBNWnm9uy8DjxD+rSIqN4M1/G6eVZ5A/RHmOvmKBkqYgjIv3x6HMVuR3eOMioJ59OIplx5B9HM0cWUWDdmJXf6n6F4G X-SW-Source: 2013-05/txt/msg00111.txt.bz2 On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 4:14 PM, Paul Smith wrote: > On Wed, 2013-05-22 at 14:12 -0600, Tom Tromey wrote: > And the top 10 users in the slow instance: > > Each sample counts as 0.01 seconds. > % cumulative self self total > time seconds seconds calls ms/call ms/call name > 23.99 14.26 14.26 69374700 0.00 0.00 lookup_partial_symbol > 23.77 28.39 14.13 784950557 0.00 0.00 strcmp_iw > 11.74 35.37 6.98 763482775 0.00 0.00 symbol_get_demangled_name > 7.23 39.67 4.30 819480663 0.00 0.00 symbol_natural_name > 7.22 43.96 4.29 373483 0.01 0.01 lookup_symbol_aux_psymtabs > 5.60 47.29 3.33 777569558 0.00 0.00 symbol_matches_domain > 4.98 50.25 2.96 819477261 0.00 0.00 symbol_search_name > 2.46 51.71 1.46 34366788 0.00 0.00 strcmp_iw_ordered > 1.51 52.61 0.90 4 225.00 225.00 fprintf_symbol_filtered > 1.46 53.48 0.87 15316453 0.00 0.00 xstrdup Looks rather familiar. :-)