From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Robert Picco Cc: Andrew Cagney , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: new gdb remote packet type Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 20:55:00 -0000 Message-id: <20040512205512.GB3728@nevyn.them.org> References: <4087E8C0.30806@hp.com> <4087EE4B.4010805@gnu.org> <40912015.7070902@hp.com> <40928D64.8010209@gnu.org> <4097D9DE.2030004@hp.com> <40993C21.1040500@gnu.org> <409A95AB.6020101@hp.com> <40A26AF4.4050001@gnu.org> <20040512183055.GA32460@nevyn.them.org> <40A27584.7090200@hp.com> X-SW-Source: 2004-05/msg00385.html On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 03:05:40PM -0400, Robert Picco wrote: > On IA64 the g-packet is too large for kernel debugging. How would you > suggest identifying registers that are in g-packet. Use another > protocol extension to see whether target wants to exclude registers from > g-packet? Another way would be to optionally enable the p-packet with a > "set-command". This p-packet causes very little latency on IA64 because > most register values retrieved come from RSE (register stack engine) > backing store memory. The latency I was worried about was round trip time - if we have to request a half-dozen out of a hundred registers, then this will probably take longer than a whole g packet would, because of waiting for each side to process the conversation. I guess we'll ignore it for now and investigate smaller regsets later with qPart. -- Daniel Jacobowitz