This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH] symbol lookup cache
- From: Joel Brobecker <brobecker at adacore dot com>
- To: Doug Evans <xdje42 at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>, "gdb-patches at sourceware dot org" <gdb-patches at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2014 07:48:33 -0500
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] symbol lookup cache
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CADPb22SwQGcJPQFsPy0w1EOurknejRDa1pPHB8KxRarbu1jY8g at mail dot gmail dot com> <m3oaqybvq0 dot fsf_-_ at sspiff dot org> <83d27esisa dot fsf at gnu dot org> <CAP9bCMTemYD6-X55OMacphFY6PcAan8Vr9E_Rh43KN=x4_NB7Q at mail dot gmail dot com> <83k31mqeoa dot fsf at gnu dot org> <CAP9bCMQWV4LRP+sxLfCkqBCj2e4qwiqJsxnrfDf=CyOgcac0wg at mail dot gmail dot com> <83egrtr80o dot fsf at gnu dot org> <CAP9bCMRNnQsMB5i962mzT_-H_s+in09A7rZiC6KkQ2NfFzJJjg at mail dot gmail dot com> <20141221210151 dot GL12884 at adacore dot com> <CAP9bCMTC1tbFMB_6sA6Lmuudc+RRuKvHMn=eRb6Jj6-oXCivsg at mail dot gmail dot com>
> But, *if* one-size-fits-all *wasn't* working (*1), and I think I can
> reasonably assume we're agreed we're not there yet, then would you
> immediately go the route of providing a user option to allow changing
> the size, or first see if gdb could do better on its own?
>
> ---
> (*1): I'm only suggesting exploring dynamically adjusting the cache
> size (I realize you wrote hash size) *if* the data suggests we need
> it. IMO we're not there yet. But, and here's where the disagreement
> is (AFAICT), *if* we do get there, I'd rather see if gdb could do
> better on its own first, before adding a knob that the user has to
> tweak to get the desired performance.
On that, I don't really have an opinion, at least not yet; and since
I don't see us getting there, I propose we do not decide now :).
--
Joel