This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: Performance regression (12x): Re: RFC: add relative file name handling for linespecs
- From: Joel Brobecker <brobecker at adacore dot com>
- To: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Jan Kratochvil <jan dot kratochvil at redhat dot com>, gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 14:21:38 +0400
- Subject: Re: Performance regression (12x): Re: RFC: add relative file name handling for linespecs
- References: <m3d3arlez3.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <m3zkdnmlei.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <20120119153236.GA6229@host2.jankratochvil.net> <m37h07ej9g.fsf@fleche.redhat.com>
Hi Tom,
> Jan> I have noticed nightly regression testing to start randomly timing
> Jan> out a lot for gdb.ada/* testcases, narrowed it down to this
> Jan> check-in.
>
> I looked into this.
I missed this message! You should have told me and I would have looked
into it.
> 2012-01-31 Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com>
>
> * ada-lang.c (ada_lookup_symbol_list_full): New function, from
> ada_lookup_symbol_list. Add 'full_search' argument.
> (ada_lookup_symbol_list): Rewrite in terms of
> ada_lookup_symbol_list_full.
> (ada_iterate_over_symbols): Use ada_lookup_symbol_list_full.
Thanks a lot for the patch. I agree that the patch looks correct,
but I'm a little confused by the name of the new function (the _full
suffix suggests that the lookup is always a full search).
Traditionally, we've used a _1 suffix instead, which is very
unimaginative and yet so convenient. I was going to change
your patch this way, but in the end, I'm just thinking I should
just add the parameter and update all callers. There are not that
many. I suspect you might have thought about this too, only to
just try the minimum change.
Would it be OK with you if I made that change instead?
--
Joel