From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32695 invoked by alias); 29 Apr 2003 15:10:18 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 32686 invoked from network); 29 Apr 2003 15:10:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (66.30.197.194) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 29 Apr 2003 15:10:17 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E41542B2F; Tue, 29 Apr 2003 11:10:05 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3EAE95CD.8070207@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 15:10:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030223 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Carlton Cc: gdb , Elena Zannoni , Jim Blandy Subject: Re: [rfc] struct dictionary References: <3EA89AB3.6050403@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-04/txt/msg00325.txt.bz2 > On Fri, 25 Apr 2003 11:31:35 -0400, Andrew Cagney said: > > >> Ok, humor me ... >> http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb/2003-04/msg00017.html why even >> build these data structures during symbol reading? It takes time >> and space, yet is probably never used. Why not on-demand build this >> dictionary specialized for the block? > > > That sounds great to me if we can get it to work. It's certainly > another reason to try to get the symbol lookup stuff abstracted behind > an opaque interface: it makes lazy loading of data a lot easier. But which interface? A block has a language, and [I think] it's the language that, in the end decides that block's name->symbol lookup strategy. The language can, on demand, build a dictionary for its block. > About the mdebugread stuff: personally, I don't care about it in the > slightest, so I'm happy for its performance to degrade, and it seems > little-enough used that a 2x degradation is perfectly acceptable. > After all, if anybody really cares about it, there's an easy fix: > buildsym-ify it, so that it uses the same mechanisms everybody else > does. Having said that, I've already done the work on my branch to > convert it to an efficient dictionary mechanism (using a combination > of hashed and unsorted linear representations); it really wasn't all > that much work. The alternative being simplify it, and then let the Java/C++ languages implement the searching schema that they need. Andrew