This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com 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] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 03:41:10PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:>Does anyone have a comment on this patch? If not, I'll commit it in a >couple of days, after I'm added to the global write list. > >(The type code has no specific maintainer, the debug reader and >language parts I consider obvious, and the patch is over a month old >now.)
I'm mainly wondering if we're that desperate for memory space.
I thought a data structure was added to GDB so that it could spot duplicate type info and, hence, keep its memory size down.
If so, I don't see it. The debug readers will create a new copy when they hit a new definition.
Sigh, looks depressingly like a proposal that fell flat :-( There are bcache's for macro and psymbol stuff but not types.
True, the real problem is (true?) the type duplication - gdb is wasting memory by duplicating type information - fixing that eliminates the problem removing the need for a micro optomization?Besides, wasting memory is still bad. And that's not the reason I did it, anyway:
>>The goal is to allow more kinds of fields to be marked artificial - >>particularly data members. After this patch I'll submit the followup to >>mark DW_AT_artificial members as artificial types.... in other words, moving artificial out of loc without wasting an additional 32 bits.
I'm definitly not questioning this. Andrew
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |