From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <binutils-return-40363-listarch-binutils=sources.redhat.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 21511 invoked by alias); 5 May 2005 09:58:47 -0000
Mailing-List: contact binutils-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:binutils-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/binutils/>
List-Post: <mailto:binutils@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:binutils-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: binutils-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 19411 invoked from network); 5 May 2005 09:57:16 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31)
  by sourceware.org with SMTP; 5 May 2005 09:57:16 -0000
Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254])
	by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j459vFgY015685
	for <binutils@sources.redhat.com>; Thu, 5 May 2005 05:57:16 -0400
Received: from pobox.surrey.redhat.com (pobox.surrey.redhat.com [172.16.10.17])
	by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id j459vEO14417;
	Thu, 5 May 2005 05:57:14 -0400
Received: from [172.31.0.98] (vpnuser2.surrey.redhat.com [172.16.9.2])
	by pobox.surrey.redhat.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id j459vCkk001164;
	Thu, 5 May 2005 10:57:12 +0100
Message-ID: <4279EDEB.1060601@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 05 May 2005 10:00:00 -0000
From: Nick Clifton <nickc@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (X11/20041206)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Zack Weinberg <zack@codesourcery.com>, Ben Elliston <bje@au1.ibm.com>
CC: binutils@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: PATCH: use hashtab for pseudo op table
References: <4271E891.5090202@au.ibm.com> <874qdqj90o.fsf@codesourcery.com>
In-Reply-To: <874qdqj90o.fsf@codesourcery.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SW-Source: 2005-05/txt/msg00153.txt.bz2

Hi Ben, Hi Zack,

 > Zack Weinberg wrote:
> I do not think replacing gas/hash.c with hashtab.c is a good idea, for
> reasons laid out (somewhat cursorily) in
> <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/binutils/2005-04/msg00056.html>.  I can
> expand if anyone wants to hear it.

I agree - Ben, what is your motivation for removing hash.c ?

I am partially concerned because there has been a recent surge of 
interest in improving the performance of gas, and it sounds like 
switching over to using the libiberty hashtab implementation is going to 
be a performance hit.

Cheers
   Nick