This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH 3/3 v2] Implement completion limiting
- From: Doug Evans <xdje42 at gmail dot com>
- To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
- Cc: Gary Benson <gbenson at redhat dot com>, "gdb-patches at sourceware dot org" <gdb-patches at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 08:56:59 -0800
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3 v2] Implement completion limiting
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1417094168-25868-1-git-send-email-gbenson at redhat dot com> <1417094168-25868-4-git-send-email-gbenson at redhat dot com> <m3y4ql4psf dot fsf at sspiff dot org> <20141210122233 dot GA7299 at blade dot nx> <m3mw6v4gm8 dot fsf at sspiff dot org> <21671 dot 20308 dot 262958 dot 475080 at ruffy2 dot mtv dot corp dot google dot com> <20150107084255 dot GA17867 at blade dot nx> <21680 dot 36641 dot 315766 dot 209208 at ruffy2 dot mtv dot corp dot google dot com> <83a91r6lbd dot fsf at gnu dot org> <CADPb22TOJ2uqQKyzEpQyCrm92-ARexduUk0b2rDqJwQvdU1uLw at mail dot gmail dot com> <20150115153930 dot GA14900 at blade dot nx> <m3vbjy9iqr dot fsf at sspiff dot org> <83h9vhu7k8 dot fsf at gnu dot org> <CAP9bCMQ_tpWGO3RvPuXkdEi4N4R-GWewrUFhktmeKp7+iPG5yA at mail dot gmail dot com> <83zj99sbgk dot fsf at gnu dot org>
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 8:34 AM, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:
>> Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 08:14:15 -0800
>> From: Doug Evans <xdje42@gmail.com>
>> Cc: Gary Benson <gbenson@redhat.com>,
>> "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
>>
>> The patch stops searching when the limit is reached.
>> It doesn't keep looking for at least one more to see if there are any more.
>> Is this absolutely critical? Why?
>
> Because if the user sets the maximum at N, she wants to see N
> elements, and if there are exactly N, she shouldn't get any warnings,
> IMO.
How often will there be exactly N?
And in that particular and massively rare case,
once gdb has found N, how much extra work will
be performed searching the entire executable
and all its shared libraries just to verify there are
in fact no more completions?
[because that's what has to happen if
we're to avoid printing *any* message]
The user waits 5 minutes for the entire list and
gets her 200 completions, and wonders
why it took so long. Then she digs a bit
deeper and finds out they were found
in the first 5 seconds. Ugh.
I don't see the benefit of going to the trouble
of avoiding printing any message when there are
exactly N completions.
If there are exactly N completions and I
see the message, no big deal.