From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14063 invoked by alias); 1 Feb 2012 15:04:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 14053 invoked by uid 22791); 1 Feb 2012 15:04:01 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 01 Feb 2012 15:03:42 +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 q11F3JrJ029495 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 1 Feb 2012 10:03:19 -0500 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q11F3Ii2024069; Wed, 1 Feb 2012 10:03:19 -0500 Received: from barimba (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q11F3G9a016444; Wed, 1 Feb 2012 10:03:16 -0500 From: Tom Tromey To: Joel Brobecker Cc: Jan Kratochvil , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Performance regression (12x): Re: RFC: add relative file name handling for linespecs References: <20120119153236.GA6229@host2.jankratochvil.net> <20120201102137.GF31383@adacore.com> Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2012 15:04:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20120201102137.GF31383@adacore.com> (Joel Brobecker's message of "Wed, 1 Feb 2012 14:21:38 +0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.92 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain 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: 2012-02/txt/msg00008.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Joel" == Joel Brobecker writes: Joel> I missed this message! You should have told me and I would have looked Joel> into it. Oh, sure, now you tell me ;-) Joel> Thanks a lot for the patch. I agree that the patch looks correct, Joel> but I'm a little confused by the name of the new function (the _full Joel> suffix suggests that the lookup is always a full search). Joel> Traditionally, we've used a _1 suffix instead, which is very Joel> unimaginative and yet so convenient. I was going to change Joel> your patch this way, but in the end, I'm just thinking I should Joel> just add the parameter and update all callers. There are not that Joel> many. I suspect you might have thought about this too, only to Joel> just try the minimum change. Joel> Would it be OK with you if I made that change instead? I will do it, it is no big deal. Tom