From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12213 invoked by alias); 19 May 2014 14:37:12 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 12201 invoked by uid 89); 19 May 2014 14:37:11 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: rock.gnat.com Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Mon, 19 May 2014 14:37:06 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5031911616D; Mon, 19 May 2014 10:37:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id Pm3AHGkszzdM; Mon, 19 May 2014 10:37:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 111A911616A; Mon, 19 May 2014 10:37:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id EF48F40002; Mon, 19 May 2014 07:37:02 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 14:37:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Tom Tromey Cc: "Maciej W. Rozycki" , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] GDB/testsuite: Bump up `match_max' Message-ID: <20140519143702.GC22822@adacore.com> References: <87bnutzwbj.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <20140519142324.GB22822@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140519142324.GB22822@adacore.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-SW-Source: 2014-05/txt/msg00348.txt.bz2 > > I wonder whether you timed the test suite? > > The expect man page says: > > > > This may be changed with the function match_max. (Note that excessively > > large values can slow down the pattern matcher.) > > > > If it is notably slower then it would be better to rewrite the macro > > tests to avoid this need. > > Funny you would say that! I was reviewing the patch, and decided to > do exactly that. Ran into trouble (fresh install), but almost there... Here are the results. As I hoped, it doesn't seem to introduce any noticeable difference (at -j16 on an 8-thread machine). Before: 1093.79s user 153.20s system 589% cpu 3:31.68 total After: 1097.58s user 155.08s system 589% cpu 3:32.39 total -- Joel