From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21322 invoked by alias); 22 Jan 2015 18:57:48 -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 21074 invoked by uid 89); 22 Jan 2015 18:56:51 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Thu, 22 Jan 2015 18:55:16 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t0MItDUr012590 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 22 Jan 2015 13:55:13 -0500 Received: from host2.jankratochvil.net (ovpn-116-51.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.51]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t0MIt9AO011363 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 22 Jan 2015 13:55:12 -0500 Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 18:57:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Doug Evans Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [patchv3] Fix 100x slowdown regression on DWZ files Message-ID: <20150122185509.GA16253@host2.jankratochvil.net> References: <21548.37770.274873.760290@ruffy2.mtv.corp.google.com> <20141002155653.GA9001@host2.jankratochvil.net> <20141231192335.GA8188@host2.jankratochvil.net> <21677.57646.178793.836948@ruffy2.mtv.corp.google.com> <20150114202618.GA21056@host2.jankratochvil.net> <21697.17716.292890.813248@ruffy2.mtv.corp.google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <21697.17716.292890.813248@ruffy2.mtv.corp.google.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-01/txt/msg00616.txt.bz2 On Thu, 22 Jan 2015 19:45:08 +0100, Doug Evans wrote: > In my mind it's easier to just treat a non-NULL value for line_header_hash > as the flag to decide whether we're using the hash (instead of > seen_partial_unit). Yes, sure I agree. I just haven't realized this simplificaton while coding it. > Sound ok? Yes, I am fine with your change; so I expect you can check it in when you ask this way. Thanks, Jan