From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4895 invoked by alias); 14 Jun 2010 17:29:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 4871 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Jun 2010 17:28:57 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_05,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_SOFTFAIL X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mtaout23.012.net.il (HELO mtaout23.012.net.il) (80.179.55.175) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 14 Jun 2010 17:28:47 +0000 Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout23.012.net.il by a-mtaout23.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0L4000800LVIHC00@a-mtaout23.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Mon, 14 Jun 2010 20:28:44 +0300 (IDT) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([77.127.88.125]) by a-mtaout23.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0L40008CHLVVG600@a-mtaout23.012.net.il>; Mon, 14 Jun 2010 20:28:44 +0300 (IDT) Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 17:29:00 -0000 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: [NEWS/RFA] Re: [gdbserver] x86 agent expression bytecode compiler (speed up conditional tracepoints) In-reply-to: <201006141215.41726.pedro@codesourcery.com> To: Pedro Alves Cc: tromey@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii Message-id: <831vc9jzg1.fsf@gnu.org> References: <201006071700.28706.pedro@codesourcery.com> <201006101836.40834.pedro@codesourcery.com> <201006141215.41726.pedro@codesourcery.com> 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: 2010-06/txt/msg00315.txt.bz2 > From: Pedro Alves > Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 12:15:41 +0100 > Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org > > On Thursday 10 June 2010 19:43:37, Tom Tromey wrote: > > Pedro> Hmmmm. This is an implementation detail of gdbserver's fast > > Pedro> tracepoints, and gdbserver fast tracepoints are new in 7.2. What > > Pedro> would we announce? > > > > Just mention the JIT in the current paragraph. > > JITting is cool, we should at least publicize it a little. > > How about this, then? Okay? Fine with me, thanks.