From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20076 invoked by alias); 19 Apr 2006 07:55:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 20068 invoked by uid 22791); 19 Apr 2006 07:55:41 -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 07:55:39 +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 DDW63884 (AUTH halo1); Wed, 19 Apr 2006 10:55:26 +0300 (IDT) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 08:45:00 -0000 Message-Id: From: Eli Zaretskii To: Nick Roberts CC: jingham@apple.com, dewar@adacore.com, ghost@cs.msu.su, gdb@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <17477.23561.267057.180@farnswood.snap.net.nz> (message from Nick Roberts on Wed, 19 Apr 2006 09:37:13 +1200) Subject: Re: MI: performance of getting stack arguments Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <1CE7391B-7261-49BD-9068-89C201F555DE@apple.com> <444539D9.80805@adacore.com> <17477.23561.267057.180@farnswood.snap.net.nz> 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/msg00260.txt.bz2 > From: Nick Roberts > Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 09:37:13 +1200 > Cc: Robert Dewar , Vladimir Prus , gdb@sources.redhat.com > > I agree. The requirements are different: with CLI the user will generally type > bt at a specific point in the session, while with MI the command > "-stack-list-frames" gets sent every time the UI needs to update. These are not _requirements_, these are _use_cases_. The requirements are the same: to be fast enough for most uses. E.g., nothing prevents me from including "bt" in the commands list of a breakpoint, which would force GDB to produce the backtrace on each stop.