From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9187 invoked by alias); 14 Jul 2008 20:25:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 9165 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Jul 2008 20:25:24 -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 20:25:07 +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 m6EKP5Ho025510 for ; Mon, 14 Jul 2008 16:25:05 -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 m6EKP4kL029925; Mon, 14 Jul 2008 16:25:04 -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 m6EKP39D018738; Mon, 14 Jul 2008 16:25:03 -0400 Message-ID: <487BB61E.7020104@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 20:25:00 -0000 From: Phil Muldoon User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (X11/20080501) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Keith Seitz CC: 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> <487BB090.1010807@redhat.com> <487BB2D4.1090702@redhat.com> <487BB46C.4060007@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <487BB46C.4060007@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/msg00051.txt.bz2 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