From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14323 invoked by alias); 3 Dec 2013 18:28:16 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 14311 invoked by uid 89); 3 Dec 2013 18:28:15 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_20,RDNS_NONE,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from Unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 03 Dec 2013 18:28:14 +0000 Received: from int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.25]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id rB3IS5PC027480 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 3 Dec 2013 13:28:05 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id rB3IS3S8010728; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 13:28:04 -0500 Message-ID: <529E22B3.6070203@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2013 18:28:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130625 Thunderbird/17.0.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Yao Qi CC: Mark Kettenis , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] skip_prolgoue (amd64) References: <1385735051-27558-1-git-send-email-yao@codesourcery.com> <1385735051-27558-3-git-send-email-yao@codesourcery.com> <201311291436.rATEaZ5Z030292@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <201311291605.rATG5XVb030184@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <52994E79.4000004@codesourcery.com> <5299B9D0.2020304@redhat.com> <529C37A2.9000207@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: <529C37A2.9000207@codesourcery.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2013-12/txt/msg00088.txt.bz2 On 12/02/2013 07:32 AM, Yao Qi wrote: > On 11/30/2013 06:11 PM, Pedro Alves wrote: >> I'm thinking we might need to flush the dcache before handling each >> event, like we already invalidate the overlay cache (see >> "overlay_cache_invalid = 1" in infrun.c) ? > > I don't know why overlay cache is flushed in each event. Doing some > archaeology doesn't give me any clue. I doubt that the overly may > change between any two events. It (flushing overlay cache) looks not > necessary to me, at least, when overlay events breakpoint is enabled. Even with overlay events breakpoint enabled, I'd think we'd want to be careful to not hit the previous cache even _while_ handling the overlay breakpoint event. Also, with multi-threading, the overlay breakpoint event may trigger at the same time as some other event in another thread, and we may end up handling the other event first. -- Pedro Alves