From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17145 invoked by alias); 21 Dec 2009 21:29:54 -0000 Mailing-List: contact archer-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Sender: Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Received: (qmail 17130 invoked by uid 22791); 21 Dec 2009 21:29:52 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org From: Tom Tromey To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: Paul Pluzhnikov , archer@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Initial psymtab replacement results References: <20091211235901.GA16889@caradoc.them.org> <20091214230947.GA31362@caradoc.them.org> <8ac60eac0912170838r39c6916cte5a54a458a859010@mail.gmail.com> <20091217165321.GA28783@caradoc.them.org> <8ac60eac0912170920w3a9e71ebr915bae8388248f54@mail.gmail.com> <20091217181613.GA1035@caradoc.them.org> <20091221135436.GB716@caradoc.them.org> Reply-To: Tom Tromey Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 21:29:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20091221135436.GB716@caradoc.them.org> (Daniel Jacobowitz's message of "Mon, 21 Dec 2009 08:54:36 -0500") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2009-q4/txt/msg00128.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Daniel" == Daniel Jacobowitz writes: Tom> The problem I have with it is that it doesn't help the first time you Tom> start gdb. And because the cache is invalidated whenever an objfile Tom> changes, the part of your program you are hacking on will always look Tom> like the first time. Daniel> Are monolithic single objects still the norm? In e.g. the OpenOffice Daniel> case, this is fine; most of the guts are in shared libraries and Daniel> hopefully someone hacking on OO.o can rebuild just one library at a Daniel> time. Yeah, but the vitally important "gdb gdb" is still slow. Maybe I'll just buy a faster machine :-) Daniel> Yes, it does, although it probably does best with the psymtab cleanups Daniel> you've already got. Any interest in submitting those independently? Daniel> It sounds like a nice framework for investigating alternate Daniel> approaches. Sure, I will do it if you think it is worthwhile. The reason I was putting it off is that it seemed strange to refactor all this code behind a bunch of function pointers, and then only have a single implementation. The other infrastructure is the threading changes, which are a bit uglier. For one thing, I didn't see an easy way to make the BFD cache code truly thread-safe; so for now I wrap it in a lock and just pretend that nothing bad can happen. Also, I'm not 100% sure I got all the places that need a __thread modifier. Tom