From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 802 invoked by alias); 3 Nov 2003 17:25:28 -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 779 invoked from network); 3 Nov 2003 17:25:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hawaii.kealia.com) (209.3.10.89) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 3 Nov 2003 17:25:28 -0000 Received: by hawaii.kealia.com (Postfix, from userid 2049) id 94028C5E8; Mon, 3 Nov 2003 09:25:27 -0800 (PST) To: Andrew Cagney Cc: binutils@sources.redhat.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: A gdb+bfd string pool? References: <3FA27C9B.1000702@redhat.com> From: David Carlton Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2003 17:25:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <3FA27C9B.1000702@redhat.com> (Andrew Cagney's message of "Fri, 31 Oct 2003 10:15:39 -0500") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.1002 (Gnus v5.10.2) XEmacs/21.4 (Rational FORTRAN, linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2003-11/txt/msg00008.txt.bz2 On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 10:15:39 -0500, Andrew Cagney said: > Should/could BFD export a string pool that GDB could use and then > use that for any slurped symbol names? Personally, I'd be against this unless we have reason to believe that it's an important optimization. I don't like global data in general, even if it's only global to one component of a program, and having that data shared by both GDB and BFD makes me even more nervous. (Singleton is not my favorite design pattern.) So it sets of warning bells for general design reasons; our lack of const-correctness when dealing with names makes me even more nervous. David Carlton carlton@kealia.com