This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the GDB project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: [RFA] bug in symtab.c:lookup_block_symbol()'s search method

To: jason-swarelist at molenda dot com
Subject: Re: [RFA] bug in symtab.c:lookup_block_symbol()'s search method
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at is dot elta dot co dot il>
Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2001 09:15:45 +0200 (IST)
CC: dan at cgsoftware dot com, gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
References: <C854422C-AA18-11D5-94ED-0030657B5340@cgsoftware.com> <7370175E-AA1B-11D5-94ED-0030657B5340@cgsoftware.com> <20010915140234.A17079@shell17.ba.best.com>
Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at is dot elta dot co dot il>

> Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2001 14:02:35 -0700
> From: Jason Molenda <jason-swarelist@molenda.com>
> 
> I'd like to stay focused on the topic on hand for now.  This
> discussion is about gdb currently experiencing a serious performance
> regression wrt the last release of gdb, and I'm submitting a patch
> to fix that.  I'd like to see this problem addressed before 5.1 goes
> out.

Why do you think it needs to be addressed in 5.1?  AFAIK, the fact
that the release branch was cut means that only relatively safe
bugfixes are accepted on the branch.  This change doesn't seem safe
enough IMHO, since we still continue arguing whether there are or
aren't cases where Dan's change matters.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [RFA] bug in symtab.c:lookup_block_symbol()'s search method
  - From: Andrew Cagney

References:
- Re: [RFA] bug in symtab.c:lookup_block_symbol()'s search method
  - From: Daniel Berlin
- Re: [RFA] bug in symtab.c:lookup_block_symbol()'s search method
  - From: Daniel Berlin
- Re: [RFA] bug in symtab.c:lookup_block_symbol()'s search method
  - From: Jason Molenda

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]