Re: suggestion for dictionary representation

Jim Blandy
2002-09-25T04:01:16Z

Daniel Berlin <dberlin@dberlin.org> writes:

> On Tue, 24 Sep 2002, Jim Blandy wrote:
>
> >
> > > Also, for what it's worth, I'm still not ready to completely give up
> > > on representing members of classes via a dictionary; that would
> > > provide another place where a linear dictionary environment could be
> > > useful.
> >
> > I agree, but it's worth noting that `struct symbol' is 52 bytes long
> > on a Pentium, whereas `struct field' and `struct fn_field' are 16
> > bytes long.
> >
> > Not that that necessarily matters. We know GDB does have memory
> > consumption problems, but I have never seen those problems really
> > analyzed.
>
> Um, I have these statistics, but I need to know *exactly* what you want to
> know to be able to give them to you.

On large C++ programs, how much of a difference would it make if we
used `struct symbol' objects (52 bytes long) to represent data members
and member functions, instead of `struct field' and `struct fn_field'
objects (both 16 bytes long)?