From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11440 invoked by alias); 7 Mar 2013 14:59:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 11432 invoked by uid 22791); 7 Mar 2013 14:58:58 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_WL X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from relay1.mentorg.com (HELO relay1.mentorg.com) (192.94.38.131) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 07 Mar 2013 14:58:54 +0000 Received: from svr-orw-exc-10.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.98.58]) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1UDcHV-0006Rh-F9 from Yao_Qi@mentor.com ; Thu, 07 Mar 2013 06:58:53 -0800 Received: from SVR-ORW-FEM-03.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.97.39]) by SVR-ORW-EXC-10.mgc.mentorg.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 7 Mar 2013 06:58:53 -0800 Received: from qiyao.dyndns.org (147.34.91.1) by svr-orw-fem-03.mgc.mentorg.com (147.34.97.39) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.289.1; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 06:58:52 -0800 Message-ID: <5138AB05.8090403@codesourcery.com> Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 14:59:00 -0000 From: Yao Qi User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Marc Khouzam CC: "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] Fix dprintf bugs References: <1361192891-29341-1-git-send-email-yao@codesourcery.com> <1362057362-25324-1-git-send-email-yao@codesourcery.com> ,<513837B9.2070101@codesourcery.com> ,<5138A5CC.5070301@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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: 2013-03/txt/msg00290.txt.bz2 On 03/07/2013 10:48 PM, Marc Khouzam wrote: > So, I'm suggesting that sending an MI event from GDB to the frontend for > every dprintf hit is too much. Does the same argument hold for async > remote notifications? For efficiency, I'm thinking that agent dprintf should > not report every hit to GDB; instead, when GDB wants to know the hit > count (e.g, because of a -break-list command), it would ask the agent > for the current hit count. This would cut down on the communication > from agent to GDB when using dprintf. If we use async remote notification for hit count update, of course, GDBserver can't report *every* hit count update to GDB, which is relatively expensive. GDBserver shouldn't send new async remote notification to GDB until the previous notification is ack'ed by GDB. -- Yao (齐尧)