From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.com>
To: "Howell, David P" <david.p.howell@intel.com>
Cc: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>,
wim delvaux <wim.delvaux@adaptiveplanet.com>,
gdb@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: why is gdb 5.2 so slow
Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2002 12:46:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3DC2E819.9000700@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <331AD7BED1579543AD146F5A1A44D5251279CE@fmsmsx403.fm.intel.com>
>> - Removing all breakpoints, that's just wrong, there's a test in
>> signals.exp (xfailed :P) which shows why. We should _only_ be
>
> removing
>
>> any breakpoints at the address we're hopping over.
>
> [DPH] I thought we need this to show a clean program space, i.e. without
>
> gdb's modifications, i.e. breakpoints. My guess is that the code
> is
> general that does this and we'd have to put more logic in to
> detect
> when we are poking in the address space after the breakpoint.
No.
Breakpoints are pulled to ensure that the target is clean when [not if
:-)] gdb barfs / is killed / .... Attach GDB to a process, set a few
breakpoints, continue the process, and then shoot GDB. The process
quickly dies with a SIGTRAP from one of those, still in memory, breakpoints.
GDB does have methods that present a clean program space. Using those
functions, and not pulling breakpoints, should largely involve legwork.
However, things like single-step and thread-hop would be more
complicated involving a bit of think-o to get right.
What would really help is for the kernel to provide an option where it
rips out out any stray breakpoints after a detach. That way GDB could
safely enable this by default.
Andrew
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-11-01 20:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-11-01 11:43 Howell, David P
2002-11-01 12:46 ` Andrew Cagney [this message]
2002-11-04 12:44 ` Jim Blandy
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2002-10-31 17:32 wim delvaux
2002-10-31 19:51 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2002-11-01 5:31 ` wim delvaux
2002-11-01 6:58 ` Andrew Cagney
2002-11-01 7:15 ` wim delvaux
2002-11-01 7:17 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2002-11-01 8:13 ` wim delvaux
2002-11-01 7:15 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2002-11-01 8:55 ` Andrew Cagney
2002-11-01 10:14 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2002-11-01 10:32 ` Andrew Cagney
2002-11-01 10:44 ` Kevin Buettner
[not found] ` <redirect-4290038@silicondust.com>
2002-11-01 8:36 ` Nick Kelsey
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=3DC2E819.9000700@redhat.com \
--to=ac131313@redhat.com \
--cc=david.p.howell@intel.com \
--cc=drow@mvista.com \
--cc=gdb@sources.redhat.com \
--cc=wim.delvaux@adaptiveplanet.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox