From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28137 invoked by alias); 14 Jul 2008 16:44:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 28130 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Jul 2008 16:44:44 -0000 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 14 Jul 2008 16:44:26 +0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m6EGiOlB007984 for ; Mon, 14 Jul 2008 12:44:24 -0400 Received: from pobox-2.corp.redhat.com (pobox-2.corp.redhat.com [10.11.255.15]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id m6EGiOts015623; Mon, 14 Jul 2008 12:44:24 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain (vpn-4-54.str.redhat.com [10.32.4.54]) by pobox-2.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id m6EGiNAG027150; Mon, 14 Jul 2008 12:44:23 -0400 Message-ID: <487B8266.9020601@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 16:44:00 -0000 From: Phil Muldoon User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (X11/20080501) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rick Moseley CC: frysk Subject: Re: GDB interface: MI versus API or ?? References: <487B64C8.30707@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <487B64C8.30707@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.58 on 172.16.52.254 X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact frysk-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: frysk-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2008-q3/txt/msg00032.txt.bz2 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