From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15666 invoked by alias); 19 Apr 2006 08:45:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 15562 invoked by uid 22791); 19 Apr 2006 08:45:10 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nitzan.inter.net.il (HELO nitzan.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.20) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 19 Apr 2006 08:45:08 +0000 Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-80-230-206-41.inter.net.il [80.230.206.41]) by nitzan.inter.net.il (MOS 3.7.3-GA) with ESMTP id DDW73696 (AUTH halo1); Wed, 19 Apr 2006 11:45:04 +0300 (IDT) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 12:40:00 -0000 Message-Id: From: Eli Zaretskii To: Jim Ingham CC: dewar@adacore.com, ghost@cs.msu.su, gdb@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: (message from Jim Ingham on Tue, 18 Apr 2006 14:17:24 -0700) Subject: Re: MI: performance of getting stack arguments Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <1CE7391B-7261-49BD-9068-89C201F555DE@apple.com> <444539D9.80805@adacore.com> X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-04/txt/msg00262.txt.bz2 > Cc: Vladimir Prus , gdb@sources.redhat.com > From: Jim Ingham > Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 14:17:24 -0700 > > But just keep in > mind, when you are implementing a GUI debugger that anything you show > in the UI you are pledging to update every time a step is completed. > And most folks are pretty sensitive about how long it takes for each > step to complete. So you do need to be a bit conservative about what > you display by default. Adding to this, gdb does get slow as > programs get large, which makes it even more important to be judicious. How about if we implement a facility to send just the changes in the call stack since the last time the stack was sent? This way, the amount of stuff sent each stop will be much smaller, I think.