On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 8:12 PM, Spen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > I am struggling to see what gain this patch has brought
>> (unless i have
>> > missed something) - you are still calculating the checksum.
>> > you have just moved inline code to a inline function !!
>>
>> -O3 will remove the cal
> > I am struggling to see what gain this patch has brought
> (unless i have
> > missed something) - you are still calculating the checksum.
> > you have just moved inline code to a inline function !!
>
> -O3 will remove the calculation because the result of that
> calculation is not used.
>
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 5:30 PM, Spen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Committed.
>>
>>
>
> I am struggling to see what gain this patch has brought (unless i have
> missed something) - you are still calculating the checksum.
> you have just moved inline code to a inline function !!
-O3 will remove
>
> Committed.
>
>
I am struggling to see what gain this patch has brought (unless i have
missed something) - you are still calculating the checksum.
you have just moved inline code to a inline function !!
Cheers
Spen
___
Openocd-development mailing
Committed.
--
Øyvind Harboe
http://www.zylin.com/zy1000.html
ARM7 ARM9 XScale Cortex
JTAG debugger and flash programmer
___
Openocd-development mailing list
Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-developm
Any fundamental objections to removing checksum calculations in
the noack case?
Did test this yet.
--
Øyvind Harboe
http://www.zylin.com/zy1000.html
ARM7 ARM9 XScale Cortex
JTAG debugger and flash programmer
Index: C:/workspace/openocd/src/server/gdb_server.c
===
On Sat, Aug 23, 2008 at 3:58 PM, Spen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> What version of GDB do we need to test this?
>>
>> CVS HEAD?
>> >
>
> yes cvs head was used.
>
> This is the link to the original gdb patch:
> http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2008-07/msg00152.html
What about removing check
>
> What version of GDB do we need to test this?
>
> CVS HEAD?
> >
yes cvs head was used.
This is the link to the original gdb patch:
http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2008-07/msg00152.html
Cheers
Spen
___
Openocd-development mailing list
Openocd
On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 9:58 PM, Spen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>>
>> Comments:
>>
>> - It seems odd to remove ack and leave in the checksum.
>> TCP/IP has checksums & handling of transport problems coming
>> out of it's ears.
>
> true, need to look into it further but gdb still send
>
> Yes.
>
>
> Comments:
>
> - It seems odd to remove ack and leave in the checksum.
> TCP/IP has checksums & handling of transport problems coming
> out of it's ears.
true, need to look into it further but gdb still sends the checksum.
> - Why are there acks removed on outgoing, but not in
On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 8:25 PM, Spen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> find attached a patch for the new gdb no ack message (QStartNoAckMode).
> It is auto probed by newer versions of gdb, so has no effect on older
> versions.
>
> Thoughts, commit ?
Yes.
Comments:
- It seems odd to remove a
Hi,
find attached a patch for the new gdb no ack message (QStartNoAckMode).
It is auto probed by newer versions of gdb, so has no effect on older
versions.
Thoughts, commit ?
Cheers
Spen
noack.patch
Description: Binary data
___
Openocd-development ma
12 matches
Mail list logo
