From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jim Blandy To: Andrew Cagney Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: RFA: pause after sending S-records to ROM68K monitor Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 21:02:00 -0000 Message-id: References: <20010809005554.1CDB75E9D8@zwingli.cygnus.com> <3B72CAC8.1060504@cygnus.com> <3B74789B.3080100@cygnus.com> X-SW-Source: 2001-08/msg00122.html I see what you're looking for. That would certainly be better than what I did --- under my system, if you had really high latency, you'd have to lower the alleged baud rate some amount that varies based on the size of your program... ugh... I'll withdraw this patch for revisions. Andrew Cagney writes: > I think you've got it half right The time taken is something like: > > size-of-pipe * amount-of-data + round-trip > > (I don't have my AST networks book handy to don't trust this). > round-trip is loosely defined by remote_timeout. As you note the baud > loosely defines the transfer-rate. This is if we assume 100% efficiency :-) > > In your case, it is probably more exactly defined as: > > ABOVE - (current-time - start-time) > > remember, if you are talking down a real serial port then the buffering > will be zero and you only want to wait for round-trip time. > > Using this, i'd expect something like > > if (remote_throughput (??better-name??) >= 0) > transfer_time = remote_throughput * sizeoftransfer; > else > transfer_time = something made up from the baud-rate > > timeout = transfer_time - (current_time - start_time) + remote_timeout