From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 60786 invoked by alias); 29 Jul 2015 10:15:14 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 60776 invoked by uid 89); 29 Jul 2015 10:15:14 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Wed, 29 Jul 2015 10:15:12 +0000 Received: from int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.27]) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 693819C0A3; Wed, 29 Jul 2015 10:15:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from blade.nx (ovpn-116-19.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.19]) by int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t6TAFAMQ029224; Wed, 29 Jul 2015 06:15:11 -0400 Received: by blade.nx (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 152E9264F04; Wed, 29 Jul 2015 11:15:10 +0100 (BST) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 10:15:00 -0000 From: Gary Benson To: Doug Evans Cc: Sandra Loosemore , "gdb@sourceware.org" Subject: Re: GDB now takes 4 minutes to start up with remote gdbserver target Message-ID: <20150729101509.GB19548@blade.nx> References: <55B1768E.9090309@codesourcery.com> <55B1A4FC.9010403@codesourcery.com> <20150724085244.GB22673@blade.nx> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-07/txt/msg00079.txt.bz2 Doug Evans wrote: > On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 1:52 AM, Gary Benson wrote: > > A large part of the motivation for these patches was to automate > > as much as possible so users did not have to tell GDB stuff it > > could figure out itself. Rather than reverting (the nuclear > > option!) how about we see if we can make GDB handle this. > > Being one of my pet peeves, I'm always on the lookout for examples, > hoping to raise awareness. Is this another case of gdb trying to be > "clever" with no workaround when it's not what one wants? No. There is a workaround, you issue the command "set sysroot" (with no arguments) and the sysroot gets set to the empty string, the previous default. The very first thing I did when considering changing the default sysroot was to check that the previous default could be restored by the user. As it happened it wasn't possible, so I fixed it so it was (see commit 811a659a779fdf93293fe1105d99e9db171a8b68). Thanks, Gary -- http://gbenson.net/