This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sourceware.org 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] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 12:01 PM, sami wagiaalla<swagiaal@redhat.com> wrote:On 09/01/2010 02:37 PM, Tom Tromey wrote:
"Doug" == Doug Evans<dje@google.com> writes:
Doug> One would expect the original code to have done a memset too, instead Doug> of using "static". Presumably it didn't for performance reasons. Do Doug> we know if the performance concerns were real?
No, we don't know. It is safest to just revert to what it was before.
I hope I'm not reducing the S/N ratio here, but there's something I don't understand. The original patch doesn't initialize obj_section (right?) (except by virtue of using "static"). So if this fixes things, does it do so only because we're taking advantage of the fact that obj_section will be NULL in the static version
the memset of the original patch (which only zeros psymbol.ginfo.value).
Plus, reverting to the original patch leaves me a little uncomfortable: There's a comment that mentions gaps in the struct causing cache misses, but that's no longer an issue with the custom hash function (right?).
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |