Re: suggestion for dictionary representation

Daniel Jacobowitz
2002-09-24T14:06:49Z

On Tue, Sep 24, 2002 at 09:19:54AM -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote:
>
>
> 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.
> There's just too many combinations to make a nice table or something.
> Even something like STABS vs DWARF2 has too many combinations because
> it changes with each GCC version, and even sometimes with binutils
> versions.
>
> > All the memory could be in physnames, for all we know.
> In general, DWARF2 C++ apps, a lot of it is.

I'm actually making good progress on cutting down our physname use. It
would help if someone commented on the testsuite framework I posted
last week... that's my next step.

--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer