public inbox for gdb@sourceware.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* Packing "R" actions in a QTDP packet
@ 2005-11-19  5:48 Jim Blandy
  2005-11-21 20:19 ` Michael Snyder
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Jim Blandy @ 2005-11-19  5:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Michael Snyder; +Cc: gdb

The code in stringify_collection_list will concatenate as many 'M' and
'X' actions as it can in a packet, but it leaves 'R' actions in a
packet by themselves.  Is there any technical reason for this?  Should
I simply document the protocol as allowing actions to be packed
together as much as you like as long as the overall packet size
doesn't get too big, or should I say that 'R' actions require a packet
unto themselves?

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread

* Re: Packing "R" actions in a QTDP packet
  2005-11-19  5:48 Packing "R" actions in a QTDP packet Jim Blandy
@ 2005-11-21 20:19 ` Michael Snyder
  2005-11-22  4:48   ` Jim Blandy
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Michael Snyder @ 2005-11-21 20:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Jim Blandy; +Cc: gdb

Jim Blandy wrote:
> The code in stringify_collection_list will concatenate as many 'M' and
> 'X' actions as it can in a packet, but it leaves 'R' actions in a
> packet by themselves. 

Are you sure?  That's not my recollection, though admittedly
it's been 5 years or so...  In my mental picture, the R bitmask
goes somewhere in the QTDP message, just *before* the memranges.

There is of course only one 'R' <thing> per tracepoint,
because it's a bitmask...

 > Is there any technical reason for this?  Should
> I simply document the protocol as allowing actions to be packed
> together as much as you like as long as the overall packet size
> doesn't get too big, or should I say that 'R' actions require a packet
> unto themselves?

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread

* Re: Packing "R" actions in a QTDP packet
  2005-11-21 20:19 ` Michael Snyder
@ 2005-11-22  4:48   ` Jim Blandy
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Jim Blandy @ 2005-11-22  4:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Michael Snyder; +Cc: gdb

On 11/21/05, Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com> wrote:
> Jim Blandy wrote:
> > The code in stringify_collection_list will concatenate as many 'M' and
> > 'X' actions as it can in a packet, but it leaves 'R' actions in a
> > packet by themselves.
>
> Are you sure?  That's not my recollection, though admittedly
> it's been 5 years or so...  In my mental picture, the R bitmask
> goes somewhere in the QTDP message, just *before* the memranges.

Well, that's what the code does.  It always does a savestring and
copies tmp_buf to the first entry in str_list, regardless of the size.
 'count', used to track overall packet size in the 'M' and 'X' code,
doesn't even get used in the 'R' code.

> There is of course only one 'R' <thing> per tracepoint,
> because it's a bitmask...

Oops.  That makes sense; I'd better document it.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2005-11-22  4:48 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2005-11-19  5:48 Packing "R" actions in a QTDP packet Jim Blandy
2005-11-21 20:19 ` Michael Snyder
2005-11-22  4:48   ` Jim Blandy

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).