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: Tue, 28 May 2013 13:32:53 -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> <1369284101 dot 7209 dot 197 dot camel at homebase> <CADPb22TbD-N6Rcw33NpNc2m-rdzWU19Hg8rLG6Thy6JPGU7B1Q at mail dot gmail dot com>
- Reply-to: psmith at gnu dot org
On Tue, 2013-05-28 at 10:10 -0700, Doug Evans wrote:
> And I can't offhand explain why you *only* see the slowdown with a
> core file and not with a live executable.
Well, just because we haven't found a way to make it happen with live
debugging doesn't mean it couldn't :-).
Since it only seems to happen with cores generated in a specific way
(that is, not all core dumps show the issue), I assume that whatever
thing is happening in this core file is not happening with live
debugging, or at least we haven't found a way to trigger it.
> I wasn't aware of the problems with the 12/11/16 patch you found.
> I've submitted a minor improvement - IMO the real fix will involve a
> lot more effort - gdb's symbol handling is obtuse enough that it's
> easy to introduce performance regressions or even overlook basic
> performance problems.
I'll try the latest Git to see if it makes a difference.
> Is it possible to send me the binary+core+scripts+session-log?
> [Assuming it's legally possible, there are a few services I know of
> for sending large files.]
I think it should be OK: sending the core and binary, plus the macro, is
enough to show the problem. I'll check and let you know.