This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
RE: [Patch, microblaze]: Communicate in larger blocks with the target.
- From: Ajit Kumar Agarwal <ajit dot kumar dot agarwal at xilinx dot com>
- To: Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>, "gdb-patches at sourceware dot org" <gdb-patches at sourceware dot org>
- Cc: Michael Eager <eager at eagercon dot com>, Vinod Kathail <vinodk at xilinx dot com>, Vidhumouli Hunsigida <vidhum at xilinx dot com>, Nagaraju Mekala <nmekala at xilinx dot com>
- Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2014 16:49:47 +0000
- Subject: RE: [Patch, microblaze]: Communicate in larger blocks with the target.
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- Authentication-results: spf=pass (sender IP is 149.199.60.83) smtp dot mailfrom=ajit dot kumar dot agarwal at xilinx dot com;
- References: <41df2189-0a72-4543-ba31-297f81e663d7 at BN1AFFO11FD025 dot protection dot gbl> <53A04753 dot 5010102 at redhat dot com> <53A06E16 dot 2020603 at redhat dot com>
-----Original Message-----
From: Pedro Alves [mailto:palves@redhat.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2014 10:05 PM
To: Pedro Alves; Ajit Kumar Agarwal; gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Cc: Michael Eager; Vinod Kathail; Vidhumouli Hunsigida; Nagaraju Mekala
Subject: Re: [Patch, microblaze]: Communicate in larger blocks with the target.
On 06/17/2014 02:49 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
> On 06/17/2014 10:03 AM, Ajit Kumar Agarwal wrote:
>> Please find the following patch.
>>
>> [Patch, microblaze]: Communicate in larger blocks with the target.
>>
>> Communicate in larger blocks with the target. The chunk of memory
>> will be read from the target and then used in microblaze_analyze_prologue.
>> The above process minimizes the transaction with the Debug Agent.
>
> We have core infrustructure for this now, in the form of a code cache
> that reads ahead. Could you try using it?
> All you have to do is replace target_read_memory calls that are
> actually reading code, with target_read_code calls. See i386-tdep.c
> for example.
>>To be clear, I'm not talking about changing the new calls in your patch, but instead, to change the existing calls. Then your patch won't be necessary.
Thanks Pedro !!. Would you mind explaining this in detail.
--
Pedro Alves