--- Comment #75 from Julian Seward <> ---
(In reply to Philippe Waroquiers from comment #73)

Thank you for redoing the measurements.

> With this, the scan is slower : for big applications (260_000 EC,
> 6_300_000 IP), a scan takes between 0.020 to 0.030 seconds.

That is about 10-15 cycles/IP, which sounds more realistic.

> Note that I am slightly amazed by the fact that the last run is faster
> than the 2 previous one. I cannot explain this (I checked, and the
> Match-es are all because of the 'last ip' below main, which has a small
> value. So, the last run scans the same nr of EC, but about 1_000_000 IPs
> more (1000 times), and is faster ???

Who knows.  Maybe it relates to the layout of the workloads in memory?
(in other words, it is a caching effect?)  Anyway, not a problem, I think.

> Assuming these measurements are now ok; I think this still looks
> acceptable,

I agree.

> But I think we better do first the simple approach of
> scanning, and if a user of --keep-debuginfo complains
> about performance, optimise by doing the lazy scanning.

I agree here too.

So the only question now is how to actually get the work done :-)
Do you have any time/enthusiasm to hack on this?

You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.

Reply via email to