From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22696 invoked by alias); 16 Aug 2010 20:04:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 22688 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Aug 2010 20:04:07 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (38.113.113.100) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 16 Aug 2010 20:03:32 +0000 Received: (qmail 31027 invoked from network); 16 Aug 2010 20:03:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO caradoc.them.org) (dan@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 16 Aug 2010 20:03:31 -0000 Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 20:04:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: sami wagiaalla Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Use custom hash function with bcache Message-ID: <20100816200325.GA19823@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: sami wagiaalla , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <4C6946E1.6000709@redhat.com> <20100816191348.GA16221@caradoc.them.org> <4C699679.6090209@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4C699679.6090209@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2010-08/txt/msg00243.txt.bz2 On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 03:50:17PM -0400, sami wagiaalla wrote: > I only took into consideration the values which are set by > add_psymbol_to_bcache. The assumption is that these are the only > values that will make a difference since they are the only values > available when calculating the hash. Interesting, I didn't remember about add_psymbol_to_bcache. I'd better back up - what are you accomplishing by this change? Hashing the whole structure is probably faster than hashing just specific fields, so that's probably not it. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery