From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11061 invoked by alias); 10 Jul 2012 02:29:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 11051 invoked by uid 22791); 10 Jul 2012 02:29:20 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,SPF_HELO_PASS,TW_BJ,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 10 Jul 2012 02:29:05 +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 (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q6A2T1XD007807 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 9 Jul 2012 22:29:02 -0400 Received: from barimba (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q6A2T0hc001135 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 9 Jul 2012 22:29:01 -0400 From: Tom Tromey To: Vladimir Prus Cc: Subject: Re: Multiple inferiors and memory consumption References: <4FFB3F86.2000109@codesourcery.com> Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 02:29:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <4FFB3F86.2000109@codesourcery.com> (Vladimir Prus's message of "Tue, 10 Jul 2012 00:31:02 +0400") Message-ID: <87zk78ic2b.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2012-07/txt/msg00009.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Volodya" == Vladimir Prus writes: Volodya> That is, it does not seem like GDB notices that symbol tables Volodya> of all 4 loaded executables are identical Volodya> Is this something that is going to be improved upon in future? I've been working on it off and on. You can see my latest attempt, search for [0/17] RFC: share minimal symbols across objfiles in the Dec 2011 archives. There are some follow-up thoughts scattered through the subsequent months. The problem is reasonably hard -- those 17 patches only address minsym sharing, but there is at least partial- and full-symbol sharing to deal with as well; plus some other things making it harder (dlmopen support, should we want it, makes a mess of it all). Volodya> And now for my real question -- is there any case when using Volodya> multi-process to debug several applications Volodya> not related via parent-child relationship is better than running N Volodya> copies of GDB? Nothing today. In the future they'll share debuginfo when possible, but that may be the only advantage. I've occasionally wondered whether we could have gdb fork when in MI mode and it follows both parent and child. Tom