From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21561 invoked by alias); 16 Jul 2008 15:28:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 21554 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Jul 2008 15:28:35 -0000 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 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; Wed, 16 Jul 2008 15:28:10 +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 m6GFS80f023113 for ; Wed, 16 Jul 2008 11:28:08 -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 m6GFS8QO004369 for ; Wed, 16 Jul 2008 11:28:08 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (sebastian-int.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.221]) by pobox.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id m6GFS7qe029024 for ; Wed, 16 Jul 2008 11:28:08 -0400 Message-ID: <487E13AE.7000002@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 15:28:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (X11/20080501) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: frysk Subject: frysk vs ? vs gdb++ vs gdb 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/msg00055.txt.bz2 In reading over the various discussion's its not been clear to me what exactly the proposals are, and how each fits in. In addition, while all efforts have similar long term goals, I think it is useful to compare based on more immediate expected deliverables - say over a 1-2 year time frame. With this in mind, I've tried to construct a table that gives a relatively sharp distinction between choices. Of course reality is more fluid. Frysk: the existing frysk project ?: Red Hat's new debugger as first proposed on the Frysk list GDB++: An implementation of GDB in C++ GDB: Existing GDB. A "?" indicates positions that seem to be evolving. Frysk ? GDB++ GDB focus: thread/proc C++ C++ ? linux linux ? ? user DESKTOP GDB GDB GDB language Java C++ C++ C Eclipse DSF Plug Plug? MI MI Licence V2+ V3+ V3 V3 EXCEPT EXCEPT Owner RH/OR/IBM/+ RH? FSF FSF Design Frysk Frysk? GDB GDB Frysk? Code Frysk frysk? GDB GDB developers new RH GDB GDB GDB? RH? Tech Edge: strong O-O thread/proc? unwind type/location testsuite ? mi gdb/cli remote isa's other languages ? focus/user: This is the groups intended user base and initial most critical feature; and the likely source of users. language: the project's principal language; all projects have plans to hadd an interpreter for something like Python. Eclipse: How the tool will integrate into eclipse; a plugin requires an eclipse compatible licence (such as GPL+EXCEPT). Licence: For instance, if GDB code is used, then the licence is pure V3. If it is to be an ecplise plugin then pure V3 cannot be used. Owner: Who will own the code base. Design: Where the architecture comes from; its been suggested that aspects of frysks architecture be transferred to gdb. Code: Where the bulk of the initial code base comes from. For this new debugger, while the design can be drawn from Frysk, the bulk of the implementation would be new. developers: from where developers will likely be attracted or drawn tech edge: where the existing code base has what I think is a clear existing technology advantage