This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH] Fix alignment of disassemble /r
- From: Yao Qi <yao at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Daniel Gutson <daniel dot gutson at tallertechnologies dot com>, Doug Evans <dje at google dot com>
- Cc: gdb-patches <gdb-patches at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2014 08:54:16 +0800
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix alignment of disassemble /r
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CAF5HaEUBbK4d2reSxUpUQwp7Zt_KjcpNC_nbUrMHRb0yNo9wtw at mail dot gmail dot com> <534F294D dot 4050907 at codesourcery dot com> <CAF5HaEUqppN8vLXnv5spG4WbWA0eNCQ1OybBNsM3ceTJDivrxw at mail dot gmail dot com> <CADPb22Qii2QiTZxv6-cz0zWTVOcft_nf1+Lb0rgg2c3Qyq07Og at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAF5HaEUjLYqQdgvrwEdUKBJFFeCaaZ8BQQQTSJz1RMo_VEJdUA at mail dot gmail dot com>
On 04/18/2014 01:27 AM, Daniel Gutson wrote:
> I already considered this, but thought that it would be going to be
> rejected due to be too much non-performant. Wouldn't each pass
> translate in a lot of MI messaging in a case of a remote server? And,
If you meant "rsp packets" rather than "MI messaging", we don't worry
about the performance much here. disassemble uses code cache
(target_read_code) to read instructions from remote server and the
following read to the same area will hit the cache.
> what about screen paginig? I shouldn't iterate over all the range, but
> the screen height range only.
What is the reason do you think we shouldn't iterator over all the
range? IMOï screen height and alignment are orthogonal.
--
Yao (éå)