From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2022 invoked by alias); 21 Apr 2002 01:23:15 -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 2013 invoked from network); 21 Apr 2002 01:23:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (24.112.240.27) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 21 Apr 2002 01:23:13 -0000 Received: from cygnus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76A813D1A; Sat, 20 Apr 2002 21:23:08 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3CC2147B.1040100@cygnus.com> Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 18:23:00 -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> <3CC1B811.5000304@cygnus.com> <20020420145943.A25321@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-04/txt/msg00695.txt.bz2 > 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. > I can get numbers later on how many register fetches it > actually saves; I suspect it's fairly small. Can you please add a comment to the code explaining this - it more of a design benefit than a performance benefit (the performance gains are unknown). You'll notice that I'm sitting on the frame cache patch because I'm still analyzing its effect. GDB already contains too much code that ``claims to improve performance''. enjoy, Andrew