This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sourceware.org mailing list for the GDB project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [PATCH 0/2] Better handling of slow remote transfers

From: Sandra Loosemore <sandra at codesourcery dot com>
To: Gary Benson <gbenson at redhat dot com>
Cc: Joel Brobecker <brobecker at adacore dot com>, Doug Evans <dje at google dot com>, Jan Kratochvil <jan dot kratochvil at redhat dot com>, gdb-patches <gdb-patches at sourceware dot org>, Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>, André Pönitz <apoenitz at t-online dot de>, Paul Koning <Paul_Koning at dell dot com>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 08:24:22 -0600
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Better handling of slow remote transfers
Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
References: <001a11c301b0388ac5051d0c5ab8 at google dot com> <20150811185519 dot GA28644 at host1 dot jankratochvil dot net> <CADPb22TM42jGif4PqOgpvDxb7RhzS=vBgGJijcB7h9-3rCbH7A at mail dot gmail dot com> <20150811195943 dot GC22245 at adacore dot com> <20150812094831 dot GD11096 at blade dot nx> <20150814182648 dot GO22245 at adacore dot com> <55CE6AA3 dot 8000300 at codesourcery dot com> <20150816184913 dot GA2998 at adacore dot com> <20150817085310 dot GC25320 at blade dot nx>

On 08/17/2015 02:53 AM, Gary Benson wrote:

It seems to me that being able to interrupt file transfers is polish.
With the warning patch alone, users will see the warning and the hint
about how to restore the previous default, which they can apply and
continue as before.  If they have to wait out a transfer then it will
presumably only be once.  I know some people use GDB on systems with
5,000+ shared libraries, and others use GDB on slow serial links, but
I don't think anybody combines these cases.

FYI, I am not debugging over a "slow serial link". I've been testingthis on an Altera 3c120 board (Nios II) with 10/100 Ethernet; itNFS-mounts the sysroot under test and before now that has worked finewith no obvious responsiveness issues.

So, would the warning+hint patch alone be enough?

Is it really user-friendly to make the user either wait 4 minutes orkill GDB through a separate terminal before they can act on the hint?


-Sandra

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH 0/2] Better handling of slow remote transfers
  - From: Gary Benson

References:
- Re: [PATCH 0/2] Better handling of slow remote transfers
  - From: Doug Evans
- Re: [PATCH 0/2] Better handling of slow remote transfers
  - From: Jan Kratochvil
- Re: [PATCH 0/2] Better handling of slow remote transfers
  - From: Doug Evans
- Re: [PATCH 0/2] Better handling of slow remote transfers
  - From: Joel Brobecker
- Re: [PATCH 0/2] Better handling of slow remote transfers
  - From: Gary Benson
- Re: [PATCH 0/2] Better handling of slow remote transfers
  - From: Joel Brobecker
- Re: [PATCH 0/2] Better handling of slow remote transfers
  - From: Sandra Loosemore
- Re: [PATCH 0/2] Better handling of slow remote transfers
  - From: Joel Brobecker
- Re: [PATCH 0/2] Better handling of slow remote transfers
  - From: Gary Benson

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]