From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18897 invoked by alias); 12 Jan 2011 18:43:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 18887 invoked by uid 22791); 12 Jan 2011 18:43:39 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp-out.google.com (HELO smtp-out.google.com) (216.239.44.51) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 18:43:34 +0000 Received: from hpaq6.eem.corp.google.com (hpaq6.eem.corp.google.com [172.25.149.6]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id p0CIhW55030276 for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 10:43:32 -0800 Received: from qyk7 (qyk7.prod.google.com [10.241.83.135]) by hpaq6.eem.corp.google.com with ESMTP id p0CIfBks011373 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT) for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 10:43:31 -0800 Received: by qyk7 with SMTP id 7so4042290qyk.0 for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 10:43:30 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.229.189.6 with SMTP id dc6mr1105224qcb.175.1294857810652; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 10:43:30 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.220.118.80 with HTTP; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 10:43:30 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <4D272FF6.3070402@codesourcery.com> <20110110155413.GE17302@redhat.com> <20110111233507.GD2331@adacore.com> <20110111233750.GA13164@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 19:04:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: duplicated code in gdb and gdbserver From: Doug Evans To: Paul Koning Cc: "Frank Ch. Eigler" , Joel Brobecker , Yao Qi , "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-System-Of-Record: true 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: 2011-01/txt/msg00273.txt.bz2 On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 10:30 AM, Paul Koning wrote: >> I should add that these days packet size is often far less of an issue >> than latency. > > I strongly disagree with that claim. > > While the remote protocol often runs across TCP connections on LANs, it a= lso often runs over UART ports, at speeds of 9600 baud or so. =A0Packet siz= e is absolutely a very serious issue here. [One can never have too many "For completeness sake ..." :-).] Note that I said "often". I did *not* say "always". > For example, I ended up optimizing a kernel gdb stub for MIPS to generate= T messages (extended stop messages, with a few registers included) to avoi= d the expense of the large "g" packet. =A0For that matter, I've found it ve= ry much worth while to implement the run-length encoding option in the prot= ocol. > > Latency too matters, but this is one of those protocols where saving byte= s is a major consideration.