From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18414 invoked by alias); 1 Oct 2003 06:23:41 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 18407 invoked from network); 1 Oct 2003 06:23:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO web60106.mail.yahoo.com) (216.109.118.85) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 1 Oct 2003 06:23:41 -0000 Message-ID: <20031001062341.86372.qmail@web60106.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [203.199.140.162] by web60106.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 30 Sep 2003 23:23:41 PDT Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2003 06:23:00 -0000 From: ankit thukral Subject: about QTro packet (tracepoints) To: gdb@sources.redhat.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2003-10/txt/msg00011.txt.bz2 hi all, i was reading the packets' format in GDB for tracepoints (like QTStart,QTinit etc.) and came across "QTro" packet format.i learned that this packet transmits the addresses of all the LOADABLE READ-ONLY sections to the remote stub so that the latter can always entertain a request for data belonging to these address ranges,even if this was not specified as a tracepoint action by the user. would it not be a better option to let the remote stub collect this information of it's own (from it's own copy of the executable) rather than GDB transmitting it across the network which definitely is more costly in terms of time delay suffered by the process which becomes all the more costly while debugging a real-time application? hoping for a discussion on this, ankit. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com