This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: RFC: partial symbol table address range generalization
- To: Daniel Berlin <dan at cgsoftware dot com>
- Subject: Re: RFC: partial symbol table address range generalization
- From: Jim Blandy <jimb at zwingli dot cygnus dot com>
- Date: 08 Nov 2001 12:53:47 -0500
- Cc: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>,<gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com>
- References: <Pine.LNX.firstname.lastname@example.org>
Daniel Berlin <email@example.com> writes:
> Errr, why should it be obstack friendly?
> An interval tree without obstacks will be more efficient in terms of speed
> and memory than something else with obstacks.
Putting the addrmap for psymtabs on the obstack would simplify
bookkeeping. I agree that obstacks' speed and memory consumption
properties aren't the big issue here.
What I think is important is that the data structure run at an
acceptable speed, and that it be simple enough that people with other
stuff on their minds won't break it.
> If it's really necessary, You could also use a interval stabbing skiplist,
> which would be obstack friendly. At least, moreso than the tree.
> You can just throw elements on a free list, and reuse them.
> If you don't want an interval structure, a skiplist with probability .25
> will give you 1.33 pointers average per element, rather than 2 for a tree.
> They are also much easier to maintain.
Sure, those seem like good suggestions.