From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7765 invoked by alias); 22 Jan 2007 13:52:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 7745 invoked by uid 22791); 22 Jan 2007 13:52:22 -0000 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_05,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 22 Jan 2007 13:51:59 +0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l0MDptw4025159; Mon, 22 Jan 2007 08:51:55 -0500 Received: from pobox.hsv.redhat.com (pobox.hsv.redhat.com [172.16.16.12]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id l0MDpnYX002027; Mon, 22 Jan 2007 08:51:49 -0500 Received: from [10.11.14.109] (vpn-14-109.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.14.109]) by pobox.hsv.redhat.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l0MDpmEX027247; Mon, 22 Jan 2007 08:51:48 -0500 Message-ID: <45B4C173.5010909@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 13:52:00 -0000 From: Phil Muldoon User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 (X11/20061219) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrew Cagney CC: Mark Wielaard , frysk@sourceware.org Subject: Re: fstep added References: <1166450488.3022.19.camel@dijkstra.wildebeest.org> <4586BC16.6090208@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <4586BC16.6090208@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact frysk-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: frysk-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-q1/txt/msg00032.txt.bz2 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