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: Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>
- To: Ajit Kumar Agarwal <ajit dot kumar dot agarwal at xilinx 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 17:52:22 +0100
- Subject: Re: [Patch, microblaze]: Communicate in larger blocks with the target.
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- 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> <6e827cdb-8f1d-4341-9891-78a471a4d14f at BY2FFO11FD033 dot protection dot gbl>
On 06/17/2014 05:49 PM, Ajit Kumar Agarwal wrote:
>
>
> -----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.
See 0865b04a4dec8a458bee54081b5598a6268b0724.
--
Pedro Alves