From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31518 invoked by alias); 15 Mar 2013 15:35:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 31420 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Mar 2013 15:35:30 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FSL_HELO_BARE_IP_2,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from plane.gmane.org (HELO plane.gmane.org) (80.91.229.3) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 15:35:21 +0000 Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1UGWfU-0001AE-RG for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 16:35:40 +0100 Received: from 209.226.137.106 ([209.226.137.106]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 16:35:40 +0100 Received: from aristovski by 209.226.137.106 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 16:35:40 +0100 To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org From: Aleksandar Ristovski Subject: Re: [draft patch 0/6] Split FYI and some review notes Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 15:35:00 -0000 Message-ID: <51433FAB.6060903@qnx.com> References: <51278984.3070208@qnx.com> <20130310210734.GA21130@host2.jankratochvil.net> <513DE949.6030508@qnx.com> <20130311150700.GA12857@host2.jankratochvil.net> <20130314184308.GC7696@blade.wire.rat> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130308 Thunderbird/17.0.4 In-Reply-To: <20130314184308.GC7696@blade.wire.rat> 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/msg00668.txt.bz2 On 13-03-14 02:43 PM, Gary Benson wrote: > It's definitely performance critical on the GDB side. There are > people out there debugging apps with 4000+ shared libraries, and > that exposes all kinds of issues:) > > Per your suggestion of gdbserver sending events... I've spent some > time thinking about this. I think the direction of the protocol is > correct, in that GDB asks for the library list when it wants it. > What exactly is transferred is open to change (whole list vs deltas) > but I don't know whether anybody is actually having issues with > performance stemming from the size of the transferred list. I can > certainly imagine scenarios where it would be the bottleneck, but > I don't know if these exist in the real world. If the reference for apps with 4000+ shared libraries comes from 'real world' then I can imagine passing all 4000+ each time would be one of the "all kinds of issues" that would be exposed :-) Events would be 'natural' and in accordance with many other events. It doesn't mean gdb could not query for the whole list (e.g. when attaching to an already running process). --- Aleksandar