Re: (remote) hellishly slow single stepping over library calls

[Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.com>]

> On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 03:24:30PM -0400, Kris Warkentin wrote:
> 
>> > > Would this problem also exist with the normal remote protocol?  (stupid
>> > > users...clicking step instead of next....;-)
> 
>> >
>> > What about using the T-format with a value of PC to report status, instead
>> > of using the S-format, for the purpose.
> 
>> 
>> We're not using gdb's remote protocol but rather our own.  I see from
>> remote.c though that T-format is just an expedited reply with just a signal
>> and the appropriate registers.  I'm assuming that each target would be in
>> charge of knowing what it needs to put in these replies and when to use
>> them.
> 
> 
> Yes, that's how it works.
> 
> 
>> I'll look into implementing that sort of thing on our end.
> 
> 
> It should be pretty straightforward to do.  When you get the right
> registers, it's quite effective, too.

Something useful here would be a mod to regcache.[hc] to track the 
registers requested (after a flush/invalidate) (via regcache_raw_read) 
rather than the registers supplied (via supply_register) (displayed via 
maint print raw-registers)

That, and a few single steps, would pretty quickly tell you what is needed.

The other way is to watch the output of 'set debug target'.

Andrew