From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30959 invoked by alias); 14 Jul 2008 19:11:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 30941 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Jul 2008 19:11:57 -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 19:11:36 +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 m6EJBYVj030503 for ; Mon, 14 Jul 2008 15:11:34 -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 m6EJBYex001037; Mon, 14 Jul 2008 15:11:34 -0400 Received: from opsy.redhat.com (vpn-12-60.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.12.60]) by pobox.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id m6EJBXG0029652; Mon, 14 Jul 2008 15:11:33 -0400 Received: by opsy.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id 1A771508080; Mon, 14 Jul 2008 13:11:33 -0600 (MDT) To: Rick Moseley Cc: Phil Muldoon , frysk Subject: Re: GDB interface: MI versus API or ?? References: <487B64C8.30707@redhat.com> <487B8266.9020601@redhat.com> <487BA20E.5050407@redhat.com> From: Tom Tromey Reply-To: Tom Tromey X-Attribution: Tom Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 19:11:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <487BA20E.5050407@redhat.com> (Rick Moseley's message of "Mon\, 14 Jul 2008 13\:59\:26 -0500") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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/msg00044.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Rick" == Rick Moseley writes: Rick> One thing I thought of is if we did implement an MI protocol Rick> that mimiced GDB's, would we pretty much automatically already Rick> have the GUI's that have implemented MI for GDB available for Rick> Frysk with some tweaking? Yeah, assuming we could be compatible enough. To me those responses pretty much indicated that the CDT developers do not see MI as a limiter. Tom