This is the mail archive of the
gdb@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [GDB 7.6/GCC 4.8.0] Slowdown in GDB macro processing for cores?
- From: Paul Smith <psmith at gnu dot org>
- To: Doug Evans <dje at google dot com>
- Cc: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>, Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>, gdb <gdb at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 00:41:41 -0400
- Subject: Re: [GDB 7.6/GCC 4.8.0] Slowdown in GDB macro processing for cores?
- References: <1368733335 dot 4101 dot 743 dot camel at pdsdesk> <51960329 dot 2010802 at redhat dot com> <1369248335 dot 7209 dot 151 dot camel at homebase> <1369250399 dot 7209 dot 164 dot camel at homebase> <87wqqqg4e2 dot fsf at fleche dot redhat dot com> <1369264444 dot 7209 dot 184 dot camel at homebase> <CADPb22ROm94M3deompzcxeNK=JDk+0gQRu_b97c2wua6TT5Rpg at mail dot gmail dot com>
- Reply-to: psmith at gnu dot org
On Wed, 2013-05-22 at 19:44 -0700, Doug Evans wrote:
> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 4:14 PM, Paul Smith <psmith@gnu.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2013-05-22 at 14:12 -0600, Tom Tromey wrote:
> > And the top 10 users in the slow instance:
> >
> > Each sample counts as 0.01 seconds.
> > % cumulative self self total
> > time seconds seconds calls ms/call ms/call name
> > 23.99 14.26 14.26 69374700 0.00 0.00 lookup_partial_symbol
> > 23.77 28.39 14.13 784950557 0.00 0.00 strcmp_iw
> > 11.74 35.37 6.98 763482775 0.00 0.00 symbol_get_demangled_name
> > 7.23 39.67 4.30 819480663 0.00 0.00 symbol_natural_name
> > 7.22 43.96 4.29 373483 0.01 0.01 lookup_symbol_aux_psymtabs
> > 5.60 47.29 3.33 777569558 0.00 0.00 symbol_matches_domain
> > 4.98 50.25 2.96 819477261 0.00 0.00 symbol_search_name
> > 2.46 51.71 1.46 34366788 0.00 0.00 strcmp_iw_ordered
> > 1.51 52.61 0.90 4 225.00 225.00 fprintf_symbol_filtered
> > 1.46 53.48 0.87 15316453 0.00 0.00 xstrdup
>
> Looks rather familiar. :-)
Hi Doug; I'm not sure what that means; is there already a bug filed
about this? Is it a known issue?
I tested with the latest code on master in the Git repo earlier today
and saw the same slow behavior, so it's not been fixed since 7.6 was
released.
Cheers!