From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7335 invoked by alias); 20 Apr 2002 18:48:51 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 7320 invoked from network); 20 Apr 2002 18:48:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (24.112.240.27) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 20 Apr 2002 18:48:51 -0000 Received: from cygnus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 141E43D1A; Sat, 20 Apr 2002 14:48:50 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3CC1B811.5000304@cygnus.com> Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 11:48:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:0.9.9) Gecko/20020328 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: PATCH: per-inferior register cache for gdbserver References: <20020420132315.A20532@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-04/txt/msg00685.txt.bz2 > Moving right along. This is the initial per-inferior register cache > interface; in my development sources (which are almost ready for > submittal) the interface is actually somewhat different, but that's > entangled with the rest of threading right now. I'll be extracting it in > the next few days. > > So, this patch is a step on the road, but don't get too attached to the > interface. It'll be much nicer, I promise. This version works as-is, which > I can't say for the nicer one at the moment. Um, would there be more benefit in getting this sort of thing implemented in the core of GDB? I just don't see a per-lwp cache in the remote target making much difference to GDB's thread debugging performance. Andrew