From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7848 invoked by alias); 23 Jun 2010 21:24:44 -0000 Mailing-List: contact archer-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Sender: Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Received: (qmail 7835 invoked by uid 22791); 23 Jun 2010 21:24:41 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org From: Tom Tromey To: Jan Kratochvil Cc: Project Archer Subject: Re: gdb index performance References: <20100623210802.GA17835@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> Reply-To: Tom Tromey Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 21:24:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20100623210802.GA17835@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> (Jan Kratochvil's message of "Wed, 23 Jun 2010 23:08:02 +0200") 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: 2010-q2/txt/msg00057.txt.bz2 Jan> Wasn't there a problem with incomplete backtraces (due to prelink) such as Jan> shown at the top of: Jan> http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2010-06/msg00515.html For the abiword (PPC) case I manually checked the backtraces and it all seemed reasonable enough. Ugh, I looked at the x86 case and it turns out I need a merge from master to pick up some unhandled DWARF operators. Sorry about that. >> The warm cache "bt" results are particularly good (actually I thought >> something went wrong so I did this again by hand -- it really is that >> fast) Jan> Just to be sure - assuming the machine had enough RAM. # of CPUs? The PPC box has 2 CPUs. It seems to have a lot of memory (3G). The x86 box is my laptop, 1 CPU. It has 1G of RAM. Tom