From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-118566-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 8920 invoked by alias); 21 Dec 2014 03:34:34 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
Received: (qmail 8855 invoked by uid 89); 21 Dec 2014 03:34:24 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_SOFTFAIL autolearn=no version=3.3.2
X-HELO: mtaout20.012.net.il
Received: from mtaout20.012.net.il (HELO mtaout20.012.net.il) (80.179.55.166) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Sun, 21 Dec 2014 03:34:20 +0000
Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout20.012.net.il by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0NGW00M00XRG4Q00@a-mtaout20.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2014 05:34:17 +0200 (IST)
Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0NGW00L0CXX4XG80@a-mtaout20.012.net.il>; Sun, 21 Dec 2014 05:34:17 +0200 (IST)
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2014 03:34:00 -0000
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] symbol lookup cache
In-reply-to: <CAP9bCMQWV4LRP+sxLfCkqBCj2e4qwiqJsxnrfDf=CyOgcac0wg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Doug Evans <xdje42@gmail.com>
Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
Message-id: <83egrtr80o.fsf@gnu.org>
References: <yjt2y4qrlqwa.fsf@ruffy.mtv.corp.google.com> <CADPb22SwQGcJPQFsPy0w1EOurknejRDa1pPHB8KxRarbu1jY8g@mail.gmail.com> <m3oaqybvq0.fsf_-_@sspiff.org> <83d27esisa.fsf@gnu.org> <CAP9bCMTemYD6-X55OMacphFY6PcAan8Vr9E_Rh43KN=x4_NB7Q@mail.gmail.com> <83k31mqeoa.fsf@gnu.org> <CAP9bCMQWV4LRP+sxLfCkqBCj2e4qwiqJsxnrfDf=CyOgcac0wg@mail.gmail.com>
X-IsSubscribed: yes
X-SW-Source: 2014-12/txt/msg00599.txt.bz2

> Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2014 13:04:01 -0800
> From: Doug Evans <xdje42@gmail.com>
> Cc: "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
> 
> On Sat, Dec 20, 2014 at 11:55 AM, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:
> >> Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2014 11:14:39 -0800
> >> From: Doug Evans <xdje42@gmail.com>
> >> Cc: "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
> >>
> >> > Btw, I wonder if this should be a user option, not a "maint" option.
> >> > The heuristics used to determine the cache size tend to be wrong in
> >> > some rare corner cases, so letting the user override this should be a
> >> > good thing, I think.
> >>
> >> The thought is the fewer knobs the user needs the better,
> >
> > We are way past the point where this ideal was achievable.  You can
> > stop worrying about that.  With the gazillion knobs we have already,
> > one more doesn't change anything.
> 
> There isn't so much an ideal as a process that should be followed.
> I still want to vet every new knob that I feel needs vetting.

And the considerations, such as those I described, by others that
users might want this option -- do these have any bearing on your
decisions?  IOW, is there any hope to convince you in these matters?