Hi - On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 01:14:51AM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > (It seems to me that a pure gdb report, without a synthetic > > self-injected SIGTRAP, should be fine.) > > What do you mean?
(Never mind, I'm probably just confused about what you were asking.) > > > Next: fully implement g/G/p/P, currently I am a bit confused... > > > But what about features? [...] > > > > You could dig out the old "fishing plan". One demonstrated > > improvement was from simulating (software) watchpoints within the > > gdb stub, instead of having gdb fall back to issing countless > > single-steps with memory-fetch inquiries in between. > > When I do 'watch', gdb sends '$Z2'. I am a bit confused, iirc it > was decided I shouldn't play with Z packets now. But I won't > argue. There are Z packets and then there are Z packets. The ones Roland told you not to worry about are Z0/Z1 related to (code) breakpoints, which should be implemented via uprobes at some point. The ones I'm talking about are Z2/Z3 for (data) watchpoints. - FChE
