This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH] symbol lookup cache
- From: Doug Evans <xdje42 at gmail dot com>
- To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
- Cc: "gdb-patches at sourceware dot org" <gdb-patches at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2014 13:04:01 -0800
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] symbol lookup cache
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <yjt2y4qrlqwa dot fsf at ruffy dot mtv dot corp dot google dot com> <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>
On Sat, Dec 20, 2014 at 11:55 AM, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:
>> Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2014 11:14:39 -0800
>> From: Doug Evans <xdje42@gmail.com>
>> Cc: "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
>>
>> > Btw, I wonder if this should be a user option, not a "maint" option.
>> > The heuristics used to determine the cache size tend to be wrong in
>> > some rare corner cases, so letting the user override this should be a
>> > good thing, I think.
>>
>> The thought is the fewer knobs the user needs the better,
>
> We are way past the point where this ideal was achievable. You can
> stop worrying about that. With the gazillion knobs we have already,
> one more doesn't change anything.
There isn't so much an ideal as a process that should be followed.
I still want to vet every new knob that I feel needs vetting.