This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: more on gdb server
- To: "J.T. Conklin" <jtc at redback dot com>
- Subject: Re: more on gdb server
- From: Quality Quorum <qqi at world dot std dot com>
- Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 15:40:57 -0400
- cc: Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at cygnus dot com>, Stan Shebs <shebs at apple dot com>, gdb at sources dot redhat dot com
On 18 Jul 2001, J.T. Conklin wrote:
> > > I know HP were once playing with ideas that would have eliminated any
> > > copying because they were finding memory read/write performance using
> > > ptrace (or what ever) lacking.
> > I would suppose they had something truly unusual - debuggin is going with
> > the pace of human reaction to debugging events and I can hardly imagine
> > that network performance over local loop interface would be a factor here.
> Remember that GDB may be issuing many low level commands for each high
> level (CLI) command. For example, a single step or next command may
> issue several step instruction, fetch registers, and store registers
> commands. On some large programs, some interactive commands are
> beyond the interactive threshold (something like .3 seconds? I can't
> remember the commonly quoted figure), this additional overhead would
> only make it worse.
> Also note that oftentimes it's not a human driving the debugging
> session, but user defined functions that grovel through data
> structures, call inferior functions, etc.
I still have hard time to beleive that there is an issue here.