From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10468 invoked by alias); 20 Apr 2007 22:01:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 10459 invoked by uid 22791); 20 Apr 2007 22:01:09 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from exprod8og52.obsmtp.com (HELO exprod8og52.obsmtp.com) (64.18.3.86) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with SMTP; Fri, 20 Apr 2007 23:01:05 +0100 Received: from source ([12.110.134.31]) by exprod8ob52.obsmtp.com ([64.18.7.12]) with SMTP; Fri, 20 Apr 2007 15:00:01 PDT Received: from pkoning.equallogic.com ([172.16.1.188]) by M31.equallogic.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 20 Apr 2007 18:00:31 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <17961.14337.688989.413158@gargle.gargle.HOWL> Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 22:01:00 -0000 From: Paul Koning To: drow@false.org Cc: bauerman@br.ibm.com, gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: plugin interface for GDB References: <1177098228.20179.10.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20070420200004.GB28401@caradoc.them.org> <1177104071.17757.58.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20070420215513.GA1434@caradoc.them.org> X-Mailer: VM 7.17 under 21.4 (patch 19) "Constant Variable" XEmacs Lucid X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-04/txt/msg00131.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Daniel" == Daniel Jacobowitz writes: Daniel> On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 06:21:11PM -0300, Thiago Jung Daniel> Bauermann wrote: >> I agree that a plugin interface and a scripting language overlap a >> lot in terms of functionality. I'm not sure it would cut it in my >> specific case... I'm looking at something which will potentially >> need to examine 10's of GB of inferior memory in some cases and >> I'm a bit worried about the performance. If there was already >> scripting language support in GDB, I could do some >> benchmarks. It's quite possible that the overhead of the scripting >> language would be low or acceptable. But right now I don't want to >> work (probably a lot) on developing such support only to find out >> it won't meet my performance needs... :-) Daniel> Well, it's going to get developed eventually in either case. Daniel> If you can't write things fast enough in Python, Python Daniel> itself lets you load C modules to do the real work; the Daniel> question is how fast GDB can provide memory access to the Daniel> Python layer. And I think the answer is roughly as fast as Daniel> GDB could get at it directly. Very likely. "Scripting language" often makes people expect low performance, and for some that may be true (shell scripts? Tcl perhaps). Python is very fast. It compiles to bytecode, and the execution machinery seems to work quite well. I have an application that runs through very large files, doing some simple string matching. It runs at 50 MB/s or better, on a PC. So I don't think speed will be a concern. paul