This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GDB project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: RFC: partial symbol table address range generalization

Daniel Jacobowitz <> writes:
> I've got a question.  What we really want to represent here are not
> just sets of addresses, but a single address space and the symtabs
> known to correspond to different sections of it.  Would it be more
> useful to represent them that way, so that the code to search the
> address space would only happen once for all psymtabs/symtabs?

Right, I've been thinking the same thing.  You want an "address map"
ADT --- something that maps CORE_ADDR's to void * values.  We could
use it everywhere.

For example, here's a better way to represent line number info: have
one addrmap mapping CORE_ADDR's to integers (line numbers); have
another that maps CORE_ADDR's to symtabs / null pointers.  That would
be tons simpler, and tons faster, than what we have now.  Assuming the
address map had a low per-address-range overhead, it wouldn't use much
more memory.  All the fancy logic could get handled once, when the
tables are created.

The question is, how can you represent this in an obstack-friendly
way?  The obvious representation of an addrmap is a sorted array, with
a gap for insertion, but obstacks don't like arrays that expand
occasionally.  A doubling algorithm can guarantee that the waste is
merely proportional to the final size, but that's kind of crummy.  A
binary tree works better, but you spend a lot of memory on child
links; we wouldn't want to use an addrmap to store line number info if
it took twenty bytes per line (currently it takes only twelve) (both
assuming a 64-bit CORE_ADDR and 32-bit pointers and ints).

> Then we could work on splitting off "ranges known to belong to this
> objfile" and "ranges suspected to belong to this objfile" somehow.  I'm
> not sure how much information of this sort we can really get from
> stabs, though, so it may not be worthwhile from that perspective; but
> it might be more efficient anyway.

Yeah.  Well, we can get that info from Dwarf2, so making GDB handle it
right is still worthwhile.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]