Re: GDB interface: MI versus API or ??

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>]

On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 01:01:20PM -0700, Keith Seitz wrote:
> Rick Moseley wrote:
>>> To me those responses pretty much indicated that the CDT developers do
>>> not see MI as a limiter.
>>>   
>> My thoughts exactly.
>
> Is that really true, though? Do they have any other choice but gdb/MI?
>
> The responses sound more like they welcome a "better"/enhanced debugger  
> backend (who wouldn't), but they've got a good, mature product and plenty 
> of other work to do, too. So MI is "good enough".
>
> We shouldn't confuse "good" with "good enough". But perhaps the cynic is  
> me needs to be beaten into submission again.

Just to expand on one thing here about CDT - many of you probably know
this, but it hasn't come up on the list yet.  It's got lots of
debugger backends, and GDB/MI is just one of them.  Most of the others
are Java bindings to commercial (often non-Java) backends.  DSF will
be organized the same way.

My understanding is that the GDB/MI-ness of the GDB backend is rarely
a limiting factor.  It's a bit complicating, but they've dealt with
it.  There are probably things that the GDB backend doesn't do and
some other backends do, but they're more likely to be GDB limitations
than MI limitations.

A lot of front end developers approach GDB/MI as a black box.
But recently we've had more success engaging them, getting feedback,
and improving things.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery