This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFC] [1/2] First cut at multi-executable support.
>>>>> "Pedro" == Pedro Alves <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
Pedro> We could split an objfile in two, with the shared parts not having a
Pedro> reference to a symbol space. [...]
Pedro> At a high distance, this sounds feasible to me, but, looking at the
Pedro> code, this looks like a huge effort, and I'm sure I'm missing a lot
Pedro> of complications.
Yeah. I just find it helpful to have an overview of the wish-list.
Tom> This seems like another possible performance problem; lazily reading
Tom> it would be friendlier. In a scenario like the "make" case, I would
Tom> assume that most inferiors will not actually require any user
Tom> attention, and time and memory spent on their debuginfo is just
Pedro> Yeah, I know you have patches for this. ;-)
Hah, yeah, I was kind of plugging my patch. I'm hoping that we can
actually push this lazy reading idea much further -- with my patch,
the pause when gdb actually goes to read the debuginfo can be rather
noticeable on occasion. But, this is vague dreaming, I don't really
know how to implement full laziness yet.
Tom> "Program exited normally." could also use some love... at least some
Tom> info about the program, and maybe removing the excess newlines?
Pedro> For my own testing, I've tweaked those messages to include the
Pedro> process id. It's just mad otherwise. However, it has been
Pedro> one of my goals to not change much how the single-inferior case
Pedro> works/outputs as a first incremental step. I'm sure there will
Pedro> be different opinions on to what GDB should output, so this avoids
Pedro> such discussions for now :-).
Practical plan :-)
Tom> + ui_out_table_header (uiout, 1, ui_left, "current", "");
Tom> For some reason I did not think of leaving the header empty when I did
Tom> this for "info inferiors". I like this better... since you're also
Tom> touching print_inferior, how about just making that change?
Pedro> But I had already. :-) Or, do you mean to split that change out
Pedro> of the patch? I can do that. I think that would be good idea.
I thought your patch had this change in one place but not "info
inferiors". Maybe I missed it. Anyway, don't worry about it, I'll
mark this note and go back and check once everything goes in.
Pedro> I'm now working on cleaning up a bit the patch and fixing the
Pedro> random crashes I mentioned, and I'll be posting an updated
Pedro> patch soon.
I'm looking forward to it.