From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2770 invoked by alias); 14 Jul 2008 20:01:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 2762 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Jul 2008 20:01:44 -0000 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 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 20:01:27 +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 m6EK1PiS017190 for ; Mon, 14 Jul 2008 16:01:25 -0400 Received: from pobox.corp.redhat.com (pobox.corp.redhat.com [10.11.255.20]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id m6EK1Na2007412 for ; Mon, 14 Jul 2008 16:01:23 -0400 Received: from lindt.uglyboxes.com (sebastian-int.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.221]) by pobox.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id m6EK1LUx013016 for ; Mon, 14 Jul 2008 16:01:22 -0400 Message-ID: <487BB090.1010807@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 20:01:00 -0000 From: Keith Seitz User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (X11/20080421) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: frysk Subject: Re: GDB interface: MI versus API or ?? References: <487B64C8.30707@redhat.com> <487B8266.9020601@redhat.com> <487BA20E.5050407@redhat.com> <487BA97C.203@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <487BA97C.203@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/msg00047.txt.bz2 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. Keith