From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 64450 invoked by alias); 8 Jul 2015 00:26:50 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 64438 invoked by uid 89); 8 Jul 2015 00:26:50 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Wed, 08 Jul 2015 00:26:49 +0000 Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 148F434ADFC for ; Wed, 8 Jul 2015 00:26:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pinnacle.lan (ovpn-113-20.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.20]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t680QlL2028051 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA256 bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 7 Jul 2015 20:26:47 -0400 Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2015 00:26:00 -0000 From: Kevin Buettner To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Implement a simple "frame type" cache for Renesas RX Message-ID: <20150707172646.73d7ea21@pinnacle.lan> In-Reply-To: <86fv51nt4j.fsf@gmail.com> References: <20150702191958.0f5ed4c7@pinnacle.lan> <86fv51nt4j.fsf@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-07/txt/msg00195.txt.bz2 On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 17:33:16 +0100 Yao Qi wrote: > Kevin Buettner writes: > > > 1) Is there an existing generic mechanism that I should be using? > > Did you use general "code cache" stuff in GDB? see > target.c:target_read_code, which reads target's code and cache them. > Nowadays, we only use target_read_code in x86 and x86_64, and it > improves the performance of parsing prologue to some extent. Thank you for this suggestion. My testing shows that target_read_code() handles this problem quite nicely. I'm withdrawing this patch from consideration and will instead commit a much simpler patch which uses target_read_code() instead. Thanks again, Kevin