From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 129719 invoked by alias); 28 Nov 2017 15:23:48 -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 129707 invoked by uid 89); 28 Nov 2017 15:23:47 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,KB_WAM_FROM_NAME_SINGLEWORD,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=lucky, HContent-Transfer-Encoding:8bit X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 28 Nov 2017 15:23:46 +0000 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7AD5685543; Tue, 28 Nov 2017 15:23:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn04.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.4]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B85F160F80; Tue, 28 Nov 2017 15:23:44 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: Note on choosing string hash functions To: Dmitry Antipov References: <33c45098-17a4-4c8a-fb14-137e70c7bb3f@nvidia.com> <4fc8cd33-a362-ddf5-9a7c-e69eab385587@redhat.com> <2ae7734e-3ea1-e017-4a87-65a3af25d0c0@redhat.com> <05be76c3-56ff-36bf-ec57-e1339684381d@nvidia.com> Cc: gdb@sourceware.org From: Pedro Alves Message-ID: Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2017 15:23:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <05be76c3-56ff-36bf-ec57-e1339684381d@nvidia.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SW-Source: 2017-11/txt/msg00031.txt.bz2 On 11/28/2017 03:13 PM, Dmitry Antipov wrote: > On 11/28/2017 03:00 PM, Pedro Alves wrote: > >> Anyway, this is just a brain dump from a little investigation I did >> this past >> weekend, and I think that this area has a lot of scope for >> improvements, but >> I won't be able to follow up on any of this myself in the next following >> weeks at least, with several gdb 8.1 issues on my platе. > > Just for the record, I have a brain dump around this area too :-). > Instead of > optimizing htab_hash_string itself, we can try to reduce number of calls > (and > drop a few calls to strcmp as well if lucky): Oh, that does sound like a good idea indeed. Thanks, Pedro Alves