From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17617 invoked by alias); 18 Aug 2003 15:06:59 -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 17605 invoked from network); 18 Aug 2003 15:06:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (66.30.197.194) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 18 Aug 2003 15:06:58 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA8842B7F; Mon, 18 Aug 2003 11:06:52 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3F40EB8C.3040908@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 15:06:00 -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: Alexander Smundak Cc: Cynbe ru Taren , gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: parallelized 'ld'? References: <200307150234.h6F2YsNW028337@tully.CS.Berkeley.EDU> <87d6f63jes.fsf@muq.org> <3F3E43A5.1000906@redhat.com> <025c01c36521$30e2ec50$5f3b45ab@amer.cisco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-08/txt/msg00193.txt.bz2 > [switching mailing lists from binutils@ to gdb@] >> > >> > * "gdb used to take inordinate amount of time to load on our platform. > > The > >> > fix was trivial, which likely means that few people ever use GDB on >> > such large executables." > >> >> I believe one identified problem is how the symbol table uses hash >> tables. The symbol tables are being given a careful upgrade. Was this >> what you noticed? > > No, it is handling BINCL records in STABS. I have replaced the linear search > in dbxread.c, function find_corresponding_bincl_psymtab() with hash table, > and this shaved 3 minutes off the GDB initialization time in our case > (on 333MHz Sparc Ultra). > Please note that our compiler is gcc 2.95, and that this is for STABS > debugging > format. I can send the diffs to the interested parties; they are for 5.0 > GDB, though. Ah. Unless you/cisco have an assignment, a bug report pointing at the offending code would be better. Andrew