Re: [RFA] bug in symtab.c:lookup_block_symbol()'s search method

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>]

On Tue, Sep 18, 2001 at 01:56:36AM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> >> Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2001 14:02:35 -0700
> >> From: Jason Molenda <jason-swarelist@molenda.com>
> >> 
> >> I'd like to stay focused on the topic on hand for now.  This
> >> discussion is about gdb currently experiencing a serious performance
> >> regression wrt the last release of gdb, and I'm submitting a patch
> >> to fix that.  I'd like to see this problem addressed before 5.1 goes
> >> out.
> > 
> > 
> > Why do you think it needs to be addressed in 5.1?  AFAIK, the fact
> > that the release branch was cut means that only relatively safe
> > bugfixes are accepted on the branch.  This change doesn't seem safe
> > enough IMHO, since we still continue arguing whether there are or
> > aren't cases where Dan's change matters.
> 
> The suggested criteria for committing something to the 5.1 branch are:
> 
> 	o	does it build (and if not did it build in 5.0/4.18)
> 
> 	o	does ``break main; run'' work
> 
> Jason, you've indicate that this seriously hurts Apple's GDB branch. 
> Since (FSF) GDB has never worked on MacOS X, I don't think hurting 
> Apple's GDB branch is really qualifies as a reason for getting something 
> into 5.1 of GDB (The trunk yes definitly, just not the branch).

These two paragraphs seem to be in direct opposition.  Which do you
mean?  It helps performance on more than just OSX; it's an issue I've
run in to more than a few times before.  It doesn't break "break main;
run".  Did you mean "criteria for committing something to the trunk"?

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz                           Carnegie Mellon University
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer