Re: new gdb remote packet type

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at false dot org>]

On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 03:23:27PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> 
> >This patch (if 'p' were implemented for gdbserver; I have this lying
> >around, as it happens) would make register fetches default to using
> >individual 'p' packets for every register; this would hurt latency, a
> >lot.
> 
> That isn't true.  The T packet should have previously returned all the 
> important registers (and is needed anyway to make single step fast). 
> This "p" would just fill in the gaps.
> 
> If after this we still have problems, we can investigate transfering 
> registers in bigger chunks using qPart:<regset> (it was concluded that, 
> for the moment, it is too bigger sledge hammer for this simple nut).

Sure enough, I'm mistaken.  There's no target_fetch_registers (-1)
in the core code any more, although I think there used to be; just in
various native and corefile code.  So "p" should work OK.

> >Robert, wouldn't it be good enough for you to work with
> >!reg->in_g_packet?
> 
> The original problem is that all registers are in the g-packet and that 
> it was too big.

Ah, I see what's going on (though not why it "doesn't work" - I can see
it would be hideously slow though.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz