Re: ongoing frysk.proc.ptrace refactoring

[Chris Moller <cmoller at redhat dot com>]

I just committed this stuff.  You should be able to drop
MemorySpaceByteBuffer in as a replacement for AddressSpaceByteBuffer and
get a huge increase in performance in multi-word peeks.

Does anyone need high-speed multi-word pokes?  The StatelessFile class
supports that, but AddressSpaceByteBuffer doesn't, so I didn't include
it in MemorySpaceByteBuffer.  If there's enough popular demand (>= 1
request), I'll hack it in.

Let me know if it blows up in your face...

cm

Chris Moller wrote:
> Andrew,
>
> I'd planned to add MemorySpaceByteBuffer.java and commit a few changes
> to TestByteBuffer.java in frysk-core/frysk/proc/ptrace later today--is
> that going to mung up the stuff you're doing?
>
> Chris
>
> Andrew Cagney wrote:
>   
>> Just a work-in-progress update:
>>
>> While I've finished restructuring the target specific frysk.proc code
>> into separate frysk.proc.corefile, frysk.proc.dummy and
>> frysk.proc.ptrace packages there's still a ways to go as the
>> refactoring has helped clarify several additional problems with the
>> current code:
>>
>> -> frysk.proc.Proc and frysk.proc.Task seem to have gained a number of
>> fields, such as Task.sig_send, that are very Linux/ptrace centric;
>> the'll need to be cleaned up
>>
>> -> many of the methods, such as frysk.proc.Task.sendContinue, being
>> ptrace specific (they do not apply to a corefile proc), can be moved
>> to more specific packages
>>
>> -> rather than split along the lines of "corefile" and "ptrace", a
>> better split might be "dead" (you can query a dead proc) and "live"
>> (or stateful) (you can observe a live proc), re-consider that once the
>> more pressing issues are addressed
>>
>> I'll be continuing with this.
>>
>> Andrew
>>
>>     
>
>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature