From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18032 invoked by alias); 9 Aug 2010 16:37:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 18020 invoked by uid 22791); 9 Aug 2010 16:37:02 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.1 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; Mon, 09 Aug 2010 16:36:57 +0000 Received: from int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o79GasUm008455 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 9 Aug 2010 12:36:54 -0400 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o79Gaslw031019; Mon, 9 Aug 2010 12:36:54 -0400 Received: from opsy.redhat.com (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 o79GardW023154; Mon, 9 Aug 2010 12:36:53 -0400 Received: by opsy.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id 36E113781A0; Mon, 9 Aug 2010 10:36:53 -0600 (MDT) From: Tom Tromey To: "Markus Grunwald" Cc: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Big speed differences when setting breakpoints References: Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2010 16:37:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: (Markus Grunwald's message of "Mon, 9 Aug 2010 08:29:46 +0200 (CEST)") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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: 2010-08/txt/msg00051.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Markus" == Markus Grunwald writes: Markus> Can somebody explain these differences? I am going to guess it is this: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8367 There have been several patches for this. I'm not sure what has happened with them. For my part I am not sure how important the symlink-with-different-base-name case is. Tom