From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26859 invoked by alias); 25 Sep 2002 04:01:16 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 26851 invoked from network); 25 Sep 2002 04:01:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO zenia.red-bean.com) (66.244.67.22) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 25 Sep 2002 04:01:14 -0000 Received: (from jimb@localhost) by zenia.red-bean.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g8P3k2G25599; Tue, 24 Sep 2002 22:46:02 -0500 To: Daniel Berlin Cc: david carlton , Subject: Re: suggestion for dictionary representation References: From: Jim Blandy Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 21:01:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2.90 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2002-09/txt/msg00399.txt.bz2 Daniel Berlin 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)?