This is the mail archive of the gdb@sources.redhat.com 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: (remote) hellishly slow single stepping over library calls


On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 03:24:30PM -0400, Kris Warkentin wrote:

> > Would this problem also exist with the normal remote protocol?  (stupid
> > users...clicking step instead of next....;-)

>
> What about using the T-format with a value of PC to report status, instead
> of using the S-format, for the purpose.


We're not using gdb's remote protocol but rather our own. I see from remote.c though that T-format is just an expedited reply with just a signal and the appropriate registers. I'm assuming that each target would be in charge of knowing what it needs to put in these replies and when to use them.


Yes, that's how it works.


I'll look into implementing that sort of thing on our end.


It should be pretty straightforward to do.  When you get the right
registers, it's quite effective, too.

Something useful here would be a mod to regcache.[hc] to track the registers requested (after a flush/invalidate) (via regcache_raw_read) rather than the registers supplied (via supply_register) (displayed via maint print raw-registers)


That, and a few single steps, would pretty quickly tell you what is needed.

The other way is to watch the output of 'set debug target'.

Andrew



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