From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32050 invoked by alias); 27 Jan 2012 10:54:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 32042 invoked by uid 22791); 27 Jan 2012 10:54:01 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,TW_DB X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-pz0-f41.google.com (HELO mail-pz0-f41.google.com) (209.85.210.41) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 10:53:46 +0000 Received: by dake40 with SMTP id e40so1419955dak.0 for ; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 02:53:45 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.68.73.6 with SMTP id h6mr13281610pbv.116.1327661625652; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 02:53:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.102] ([115.195.157.214]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id i4sm19088105pbl.2.2012.01.27.02.53.42 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 27 Jan 2012 02:53:44 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4F228353.3010707@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 10:54:00 -0000 From: asmwarrior User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: [mingw] gdb eat a lot of memory and slowly when start an inferior Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2012-01/txt/msg00092.txt.bz2 I have two version of gdb build under mingw. One is build from gdb cvs 2012-01-19, and the other is from gdb cvs 2012-01-27. The former one works OK, when I debug Codeblocks, the start the inferior(Codeblocks with many plugin dlls) time is about 30 seconds, and gdb eat about 130M memory when the inferior start-up(I can see it from Windows task manager). The later one works badly, it takes more than 90 seconds to start the inferior, and gdb eat about 500+M memory. I guess that the total debug information of all the Codeblocks.exe and many dlls were loaded to memory in the second case. Any one can give a direction? I guess the commits between 2012-01-19 and 2012-01-27 cause this issue. Mostly the handling shared library patches? Thanks. asmwarrior ollydbg from codeblocks' forum