From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29643 invoked by alias); 11 Jun 2004 15:11:56 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 29631 invoked from network); 11 Jun 2004 15:11:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 11 Jun 2004 15:11:55 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i5BFBpi7002886 for ; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 11:11:52 -0400 Received: from localhost.redhat.com (to-dhcp51.toronto.redhat.com [172.16.14.151]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i5BFBo002862; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 11:11:50 -0400 Received: from gnu.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A345F2B9D; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 11:11:43 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <40C9CBAF.9080708@gnu.org> Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 15:11:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-GB; rv:1.4.1) Gecko/20040217 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrew Haley Cc: Anthony Green , java@gcc.gnu.org, gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Binary Compatibility: debug info for compiled Java programs References: <16582.65277.81118.189889@cuddles.cambridge.redhat.com> <1086813967.2819.40.camel@dhcp-172-16-25-229.sfbay.redhat.com> <40C78074.5020702@gnu.org> <16585.44402.436252.178470@cuddles.cambridge.redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <16585.44402.436252.178470@cuddles.cambridge.redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-06/txt/msg00129.txt.bz2 > Andrew Cagney writes: > > > On Wed, 2004-06-09 at 05:13, Andrew Haley wrote: > > > > > >>> So, I'm still unsure about how to proceed. It looks like Bryce's > > >>> suggestion is preferable on efficiency grounds, although it might be > > >>> possible to generate DWARF cheaply while laying out classes. > > > > > > Whatever we do, I'd like to see some solution that attempted to minimize > > > communication with the inferior process (for remote debugging > > > purposes). > > > > As an issue, it isn't relevant to this discussion. > > In either case, whatever we do, we must communicate with the target > system to extract structure info. > > > Andrew asked me about the overhead of extracting data from the inferior. > > I sketched out a number of already proposed changes changes, such as > > having the inferior agressively supply memory, that would address the > > problems you mention. > > Well, kinda sorta. Anthony is thinking about targets on the end of a wire. So am I. Andrew