From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29397 invoked by alias); 20 Jul 2011 11:02:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 29387 invoked by uid 22791); 20 Jul 2011 11:02:33 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (38.113.113.100) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 11:01:59 +0000 Received: (qmail 25739 invoked from network); 20 Jul 2011 11:01:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO scottsdale.localnet) (pedro@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 20 Jul 2011 11:01:58 -0000 From: Pedro Alves To: Paul Pluzhnikov Subject: Re: [RFC][patch] Allow user to disable tracepoint support in gdbserver via command line Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 12:34:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.6 (Linux/2.6.38-8-generic; KDE/4.6.2; x86_64; ; ) Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20110719174427.D9BC3190BC8@elbrus2.mtv.corp.google.com> <201107191928.23553.pedro@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201107201201.55709.pedro@codesourcery.com> 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: 2011-07/txt/msg00515.txt.bz2 On Tuesday 19 July 2011 21:27:04, Paul Pluzhnikov wrote: > On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 11:28 AM, Pedro Alves wrote: > > > Most of that querying is actually unnecessary. All the symbols the > > tracepoints module is looking up are required for libinproctrace.so to be > > active. So, there's no need to look them all up if any fails to be found, since > > if any fails, we know we don't have libinproctrace.so loaded yet. In practice, > > we end up doing one (tracepoint related) query per DSO only. Can you give the > > patch below a try? We have had this in our tree for months. Hopefuly it'll > > still apply cleanly. > > It does apply cleanly, and does reduce the number of packets from > 28*10 to just 10. > > Could you commit it? Done. -- Pedro Alves