Re: suggestion for dictionary representation

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>]

On Tue, Sep 24, 2002 at 10:46:02PM -0500, Jim Blandy wrote:
> 
> Daniel Berlin <dberlin@dberlin.org> writes:
> 
> > 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.
> 
> On large C++ programs, how much of a difference would it make if we
> used `struct symbol' objects (52 bytes long) to represent data members
> and member functions, instead of `struct field' and `struct fn_field'
> objects (both 16 bytes long)?

I'm not sure this is the way to go - we could have a dictionary of
something other than struct symbol, probably.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer