This is the mail archive of the
gdb@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: suggestion for dictionary representation
- From: Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>
- To: Jim Blandy <jimb at redhat dot com>
- Cc: david carlton <carlton at math dot stanford dot edu>,<gdb at sources dot redhat dot com>
- Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 09:19:54 -0400 (EDT)
- Subject: Re: suggestion for dictionary representation
On Tue, 24 Sep 2002, Jim Blandy wrote:
>
> > Also, for what it's worth, I'm still not ready to completely give up
> > on representing members of classes via a dictionary; that would
> > provide another place where a linear dictionary environment could be
> > useful.
>
> I agree, but it's worth noting that `struct symbol' is 52 bytes long
> on a Pentium, whereas `struct field' and `struct fn_field' are 16
> bytes long.
>
> Not that that necessarily matters. We know GDB does have memory
> consumption problems, but I have never seen those problems really
> analyzed.
Um, I have these statistics, but I need to know *exactly* what you want to
know to be able to give them to you.
There's just too many combinations to make a nice table or something.
Even something like STABS vs DWARF2 has too many combinations because
it changes with each GCC version, and even sometimes with binutils
versions.
> All the memory could be in physnames, for all we know.
In general, DWARF2 C++ apps, a lot of it is.
--Dan