• R/O
  • HTTP
  • SSH
  • HTTPS

Commit

Tags
Aucun tag

Frequently used words (click to add to your profile)

javac++androidlinuxc#windowsobjective-ccocoa誰得qtpythonphprubygameguibathyscaphec計画中(planning stage)翻訳omegatframeworktwitterdomtestvb.netdirectxゲームエンジンbtronarduinopreviewer

GNU Binutils with patches for OS216


Commit MetaInfo

Révision4bce40dca8e4fc700f468fa8d07be73910b4719d (tree)
l'heure2006-04-01 03:17:29
AuteurDaniel Jacobowitz <drow@fals...>
CommiterDaniel Jacobowitz

Message de Log

Local changes to take full advantage of qPacketInfo

Change Summary

Modification

--- a/gdb/symfile.c
+++ b/gdb/symfile.c
@@ -1516,7 +1516,10 @@ load_command (char *arg, int from_tty)
15161516 we don't want to run a subprocess. On the other hand, I'm not sure how
15171517 performance compares. */
15181518
1519-static int download_write_size = 512;
1519+/* FIXME drow/2006-03-30: This used to be 512. The remote target will
1520+ throttle it if it's too large; is there any use in having a small
1521+ value here? */
1522+static int download_write_size = 16384;
15201523 static void
15211524 show_download_write_size (struct ui_file *file, int from_tty,
15221525 struct cmd_list_element *c, const char *value)
--- a/gdb/target.c
+++ b/gdb/target.c
@@ -1420,7 +1420,9 @@ target_read_whole (struct target_ops *ops,
14201420 enum target_object object,
14211421 const char *annex, gdb_byte **buf_p)
14221422 {
1423- size_t buf_alloc = 512, buf_pos = 0;
1423+ /* FIXME: Should we use the memory write size parameters for this
1424+ too? Or something at another level entirely? */
1425+ size_t buf_alloc = 32768, buf_pos = 0;
14241426 gdb_byte *buf = xmalloc (buf_alloc);
14251427 LONGEST n, total;
14261428