From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10577 invoked by alias); 22 Sep 2010 23:39:24 -0000 Mailing-List: contact archer-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Sender: Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Received: (qmail 10567 invoked by uid 22791); 22 Sep 2010 23:39:23 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 23:39:00 -0000 From: "Frank Ch. Eigler" To: Oleg Nesterov Cc: archer@sourceware.org, utrace-devel@redhat.com Subject: Re: gdbstub initial code, v11 Message-ID: <20100922233909.GF2727@redhat.com> References: <20100922022226.GA27400@redhat.com> <20100922231451.GA11198@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100922231451.GA11198@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i X-SW-Source: 2010-q3/txt/msg00215.txt.bz2 Hi - On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 01:14:51AM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > (It seems to me that a pure gdb report, without a synthetic > > self-injected SIGTRAP, should be fine.) > > What do you mean? (Never mind, I'm probably just confused about what you were asking.) > > > Next: fully implement g/G/p/P, currently I am a bit confused... > > > But what about features? [...] > > > > You could dig out the old "fishing plan". One demonstrated > > improvement was from simulating (software) watchpoints within the > > gdb stub, instead of having gdb fall back to issing countless > > single-steps with memory-fetch inquiries in between. > > When I do 'watch', gdb sends '$Z2'. I am a bit confused, iirc it > was decided I shouldn't play with Z packets now. But I won't > argue. There are Z packets and then there are Z packets. The ones Roland told you not to worry about are Z0/Z1 related to (code) breakpoints, which should be implemented via uprobes at some point. The ones I'm talking about are Z2/Z3 for (data) watchpoints. - FChE