This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFA] Improve performance with lots of shared libraries
- From: Jan Kratochvil <jan dot kratochvil at redhat dot com>
- To: Pedro Alves <pedro at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sourceware dot org, Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at false dot org>
- Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2011 21:32:40 +0200
- Subject: Re: [RFA] Improve performance with lots of shared libraries
On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 16:53:22 +0200, Pedro Alves wrote:
> Not according to <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2011-08/msg00032.html>
Oops, I read it but ...
On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 17:09:31 +0200, Pedro Alves wrote:
> ... and I don't think that's entirely true. Yes, GDB will stop
> trying to resolve the spec to a symbol, but at every event gdb will
> still re-set the breakpoint locations. If the new library has
> the _same_ file:lineno compiled in (e.g., we put a breakpoint
> on a c++ template in a header, or an inline function that is
> also used by new library), then we should be getting new locations in
> the new shared library, today.
I would not state it so optimistically, in my experience the watchpoints to
inlined functions (PR 10738) and templates (file:line will break just at the
one instance kind, not all of them) do not work much. But I agree the design
of extensions should not block fixes of these issues.
Maybe the conditionals for "breakpoint can extended into new objfiles" could
be extended so that most common most simple practical use cases do not get
For example if the breakpoint is function-name kind (not [file:]line), exinst
placement has single location, it is not inlined instance and it is not
template instance? Any other ideas for restrictions?