From: Phil Muldoon <pmuldoon@redhat.com>
To: Rick Moseley <rmoseley@redhat.com>
Cc: frysk <frysk@sourceware.org>
Subject: Re: GDB interface: MI versus API or ??
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 16:44:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <487B8266.9020601@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <487B64C8.30707@redhat.com>
Rick Moseley wrote:
Hi rick. Interesting reponses.
>
> Marc Khouzam:
>
> "The new DSF-based debugging frontend that can also be used with the CDT
> also has an MI layer. If Frysk was to use the MI protocol, I think its
> usage would be easier to implement for DSF.
Why not implement a Frysk "module/plug-in/back-end/whatever" for DSF? If
CDT implements the debugger via DSF, it should not matter then?
>
> Also, GDB is evolving the MI interface for such things as non-stop
> debugging and multi-process debugging. So, MI has some effort being
> put into it. I believe an API library would need to be defined from the
> start, which seems to be more work, for Frysk and for DSF.
Cite ;)
>
>
> From these responses it seems the MI is alive and well inside the
> Eclipse CDT. Although it would seem to me the API approach would be
> more robust/full-featured, there does not seem to be any
> qualms/objections to using the MI protocol. If there are new features
> being made to MI in the gdb community it might be the way to go if it
> indeed fleshes out the functionality. We could implement the gdb MI
> protocol and then add "Frysk extensions" to get the additional
> functionality we require.
>
It sure is, but what else is there, out-there now to compare it too?
I'm not against MI, or GDB (and am playing a large degree of devil's
advocate here), but if you ask the a bunch of MI hackers what's best
since sliced bread ....
But a very interesting set of responses. The data is good, lets hope
there is more of it!
Regards
Phil
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-07-14 16:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-07-14 14:38 Rick Moseley
2008-07-14 16:44 ` Phil Muldoon [this message]
2008-07-14 18:59 ` Rick Moseley
2008-07-14 19:11 ` Tom Tromey
2008-07-14 19:31 ` Rick Moseley
2008-07-14 20:01 ` Keith Seitz
2008-07-14 20:10 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2008-07-14 20:11 ` Phil Muldoon
2008-07-14 20:18 ` Keith Seitz
2008-07-14 20:25 ` Phil Muldoon
2008-07-14 19:30 ` Rick Moseley
2008-07-15 15:30 ` Sami Wagiaalla
2008-07-16 17:08 ` Dodji Seketeli
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=487B8266.9020601@redhat.com \
--to=pmuldoon@redhat.com \
--cc=frysk@sourceware.org \
--cc=rmoseley@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).