Re: GDB interface: MI versus API or ??

[Phil Muldoon <pmuldoon@redhat.com>]

Keith Seitz wrote:
> Phil Muldoon wrote:
>
>> To be honest, I think eventually whatever we  come up with, if it is 
>> not improving GDB,
>> we'll end up at last emulating an MI interface. Just because 
>> everything uses it already.
>
> Almost certainly something MI-like, indeed. There is definitely a need 
> for a wire protocol for certain environments.
>
> I'm just playing devil's advocate. [Remembering the uproar it caused 
> on the GDB mailing list a few years back, perhaps I should just keep 
> to myself...]
>
> Keith
It think the (devil) advocate argument is a valuable one. I brought one 
up earlier. I certainly value it; lets talk about the idea on its real 
or theoretical merits. A deeper questions is why the folks over at CDT 
think the MI protocol is ideal? Is it software conservatism? Is it 
familiarity? Is it good-enough? Is MI good-enough to implement of of 
most debugging problems? What are the limitations of MI?

Normally I find the edge-cases are the killers. Like someone who needs 
to suck up 2G though the protocol straw, or various other extreme 
drivers. Are they worthwhile cases? Do CDT have these cases?

It's all good. Lets think of them now while we are still in the thinking 
stage ;)

Regards

Phil