Re: fstep added

[Phil Muldoon <pmuldoon@redhat.com>]

Andrew Cagney wrote:
> Mark Wielaard wrote:
>
>> - It is partially so slow because it accesses the Task memory for every
>> disassambly. Maybe that can be cached? Although instruction stepping is
>> just slow in general. An alternative could be combining stepping with
>> breakpoints set on "interesting functions". Or only stepping while in
>> the main program map, and not in any of the shared library maps?
>>   
>
> Yes, more efficient memory access will eventually be needed.  For 
> insttance, by mmapping the inferior address space (I know there are 
> kernel patches out there to do that), or performing larger transfers 
> and caching under the hood.  Both involve careful thought, especially 
> when it comes to invalidating caches, so for the moment, as you've 
> done, the focus remains on correctness.

Resurrecting this thread for a little bit. Is this issue related to:

http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3727

I'm hazarding a guess this all comes down to ptrace accessing the 
inferior's memory word by word, and that optimizations made in access to 
the inferior's memory (ie by mmaping /proc/$$/memory) will benefit fcore 
as well as fstep? My knowledge here is really fuzzy.

Regards

Phil