Re: froggy plans

[Chris Moller <cmoller at redhat dot com>]

Chris Moller wrote:
> Tom Tromey wrote:
>   
>>>>>>> "Chris" == Chris Moller <cmoller@redhat.com> writes:
>>>>>>>             
>>>>>>>               
>> Chris> From comments during the mtg, I think what I need to do now is
>> Chris> back off from wedging froggy into gdb for a while and go back
>> Chris> to working on froggy itself.
>>
>> I would recommend trying to get some minimal milestone of gdb/froggy
>> integration working before putting a whole lot of effort into
>> upgrading froggy internally.  
>>     
>
> The only things that might be kinda second-tier are the memory access
> and ubp; I guess I could de-emphasise those two for a while.
>
>   
>> Your list looks great in the abstract,
>> but it isn't clear to me how much of that is really needed for gdb
>> integration.
>>
>> E.g., how bad is the buffering problem really?  At the meeting, Jan
>> suggested that not many events could possibly be buffered, because gdb
>> will expect a thread to be suspended in response to almost any change.
>>   
>>     
>
> I'm trying to avoid having froggy turn into a gdb-only thing.  Uses such
> as a froggy-based strace can generate a /bunch/ of events--it was to
> handle that exact case that I stuck the page-sized ring buffer in the
> froggy kernel.
>   

Make that "froggy module."  It's been a long day.

> Chris
>
>   
>> Tom
>>   
>>     
>
>   

-- 
Chris Moller

  I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but
  I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
      -- Robert McCloskey

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature