This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [patch/rfc] New program_changed event, cleanup some HPUXHPPA mess
- From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at false dot org>
- To: gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Mon, 31 May 2004 21:40:32 -0400
- Subject: Re: [patch/rfc] New program_changed event, cleanup some HPUXHPPA mess
- References: <20040521190242.GB7207@tausq.org> <40AE6260.2090205@gnu.org> <20040526052753.GU7207@tausq.org> <20040526132546.GB7594@nevyn.them.org> <20040526153530.GZ7207@tausq.org> <40B4D9D6.7040302@gnu.org> <20040528234344.GA11062@nevyn.them.org> <40BB8AD5.3020504@gnu.org> <20040531204318.GA29687@nevyn.them.org> <40BBDC52.7060106@gnu.org>
On Mon, May 31, 2004 at 09:30:58PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> >On Mon, May 31, 2004 at 03:43:17PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> >
> >>>We'll find out - the change will put the additional lookups will put the
> >>>symtab under extra strain.
> >
> >
> >I have trouble thinking anything will break. Both minimal and full
> >symbol lookups are O(1) already and have been for at least two years.
>
> In that case, since the cache was originally added to work around what
> was a >>O(1) lookup, it should no longer be needed.
>
> Of course, if that isn't the case, we'll find out.
>
> When it comes to fixing the problem, we can extend/tighten the symtab
> interface so that other code can also benefit. That is where the cache
> mechanism belongs - not in hp specific code.
OK, I understand now. Thanks.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz