From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24147 invoked by alias); 12 Jan 2011 18:30:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 24136 invoked by uid 22791); 12 Jan 2011 18:30:48 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from ausxippc101.us.dell.com (HELO ausxippc101.us.dell.com) (143.166.85.207) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 18:30:43 +0000 X-Loopcount0: from 10.152.240.141 Subject: Re: duplicated code in gdb and gdbserver Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Paul Koning In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 18:43:00 -0000 Cc: "Frank Ch. Eigler" , Joel Brobecker , Yao Qi , "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <4D272FF6.3070402@codesourcery.com> <20110110155413.GE17302@redhat.com> <20110111233507.GD2331@adacore.com> <20110111233750.GA13164@redhat.com> To: Doug Evans 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/msg00272.txt.bz2 On Jan 12, 2011, at 12:54 PM, Doug Evans wrote: > On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 9:33 AM, Doug Evans wrote: >> I think the remote protocol itself is getting old. >> In days of multiple threads, inferiors, and architectures, plus an >> expanding feature set, ISTM IWBN to start over. >=20 > Blech, sorry for the follow-up. > 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 als= o often runs over UART ports, at speeds of 9600 baud or so. Packet size is= absolutely a very serious issue here. 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 avoid = the expense of the large "g" packet. For that matter, I've found it very m= uch worth while to implement the run-length encoding option in the protocol. Latency too matters, but this is one of those protocols where saving bytes = is a major consideration. paul