From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31156 invoked by alias); 20 Jan 2007 17:00:43 -0000 Received: (qmail 31146 invoked by uid 22791); 20 Jan 2007 17:00:42 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31.1) with ESMTP; Sat, 20 Jan 2007 17:00:36 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1H8JZR-0004ah-Se; Sat, 20 Jan 2007 12:00:01 -0500 Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 17:00:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Denis PILAT Cc: Jim Blandy , Frederic RISS , =?iso-8859-1?Q?Fr=E9d=E9ric?= Riss , Vladimir Prus , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFC] Prints the frame id when target stops Message-ID: <20070120170000.GA17591@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Denis PILAT , Jim Blandy , Frederic RISS , =?iso-8859-1?Q?Fr=E9d=E9ric?= Riss , Vladimir Prus , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <17837.16328.46414.146270@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <200701170234.34303.ghost@cs.msu.su> <200701172128.l0HLSOTc024176@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <1169071153.5155.71.camel@funkylaptop> <20070117221742.GA15116@nevyn.them.org> <1169107060.3288.126.camel@localhost.localdomain> <45B0D560.1050906@st.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <45B0D560.1050906@st.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-01/txt/msg00415.txt.bz2 On Fri, Jan 19, 2007 at 03:27:44PM +0100, Denis PILAT wrote: > As there is no consensus to modify the -stack-list-frames to perform > cache in a safe way, putting the frame_id (like discussed before) in the > MI output allows the front end to make a compromise that isn't possible > in GDB, and for some cases, the front end will be able to not get the > stack list frame at all. I understand that front end authors may want to make compromises that we, the GDB developers, don't (in order to improve performance). However, I don't want to provide an interface that looks simple but carries these kinds of pitfalls if I can avoid it. Maybe you can use Nick's MI timings patch, or a system profiler like oprofile / vtune, to get some better idea of where time is being spent. If we can make things fast enough, we should. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery