Re: new gdb remote packet type

Robert Picco
2004-05-12T22:16:00Z

Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:

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.

Ah. I see.

Would you like to share your gdbserver "p-packet" code with me? There's
no point in me reinventing what you have already done.

I've looked at the gdbserver code some. The 'P' packet isn't being
recognized. If the 'P' packet isn't supported, then do we want to
support the 'p' packet in gdbserver?

thanks,

Bob