This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: gdb and dlopen
- From: Kevin Buettner <kevinb at cygnus dot com>
- To: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>, Kevin Buettner <kevinb at cygnus dot com>
- Cc: Kimball Thurston <kimball at sgrail dot com>, Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at cygnus dot com>, gdb at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 12:38:21 -0700
- Subject: Re: gdb and dlopen
- References: <20011016220353.A9538@nevyn.them.org> <email@example.com> <3BCCF83F.firstname.lastname@example.org> <20011017010849.A23345@nevyn.them.org> <3BCDA6CF.email@example.com> <20011017141550.B10927@nevyn.them.org> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <1011017195838.ZM5524@ocotillo.lan> <20011118144510.A19538@nevyn.them.org> <1011119170409.ZM16064@ocotillo.lan> <20011119141617.A20878@nevyn.them.org>
On Nov 19, 2:16pm, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > After I proposed the above idea, Peter Schauer emailed me privately
> > and noted that my idea would "break setting breakpoints in global
> > object constructor code in shared libraries." He goes on to say
> > that the "reenable breakpoint logic after every shlib load currently
> > takes care of this."
> > So, it looks like you've also noticed one of the concerns that Peter
> > had regarding my idea.
> Yes. I don't know what we can really do about this - besides
> decreasing the total memory traffic for an update, which I think would
> be wise. Among other possibilities, do you have any comment on my
> suggestion for setting inferior memory to be cached by default if not
> otherwise specified? Currently we default to uncached, which is safer,
> but I can't think of many examples where it would be a problem to
Are you sure caching will help? The cache has to be invalidated every
time GDB stops, right?
If current_sos() is refetching some bit of memory more than once per
invocation, then perhaps this problem should be solved by some other