From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7255 invoked by alias); 19 Feb 2007 12:54:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 7246 invoked by uid 22791); 19 Feb 2007 12:54:23 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from pm1.terions.de (HELO pm1.terions.de) (83.137.96.25) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 19 Feb 2007 12:54:17 +0000 Received: (qmail 11779 invoked by uid 98); 19 Feb 2007 12:54:13 -0000 Received: from dslb-084-058-247-087.pools.arcor-ip.net (HELO ?192.168.0.2?) (tn@tneumann.de@84.58.247.87) by mail.s-s-l.net with SMTP; 19 Feb 2007 12:54:13 -0000 Message-ID: <45D99E03.1050309@users.sourceforge.net> Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 14:40:00 -0000 From: Thomas Neumann User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 (X11/20070103) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Thomas Neumann , gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Organization of breakpoint locations References: <45D97E30.2060008@users.sourceforge.net> <20070219115744.GC6815@caradoc.them.org> In-Reply-To: <20070219115744.GC6815@caradoc.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: 2007-02/txt/msg00199.txt.bz2 Daniel Jacobowitz schrieb: > Have you tested this in any real world use yet? This is only the > first limitation you'll encounter, I think. For instance, every time > hm, I only did manual tests yet. And for a single continue, even a scan over 50000 breakpoints is not that bad. But I see your point: Ultimately, this large number of breakpoints comes from automatic program tracing, which will stop and continue thousands of times. > these? Your key would not be the address, but the address plus the > breakpoint sequence number. That handles one and two. Then you can > good idea. I thought that a breakpoint could have more than one bp_location associated with it, preventing such a scheme (but even then a breakpoint would probably not have more than one location with the same address). > To be honest, I don't think this will be a small change either way. > I will give the libiberty splay a try, that should be easy. But if resetting breakpoints is indeed as slow as you indicated, by patch is probably pointless. What a shame. That would have been a very portable and nice way to automatically trace execution flow. Thomas