From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7636 invoked by alias); 7 Oct 2004 19:18:22 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 7559 invoked from network); 7 Oct 2004 19:18:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 7 Oct 2004 19:18:21 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.11/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i97JIGL0004551 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 2004 15:18:16 -0400 Received: from localhost.redhat.com (porkchop.devel.redhat.com [172.16.58.2]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i97JIAr28922; Thu, 7 Oct 2004 15:18:11 -0400 Received: from gnu.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBD0028D2; Thu, 7 Oct 2004 15:17:45 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <41659659.2030005@gnu.org> Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 20:50:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-GB; rv:1.4.1) Gecko/20040831 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bob Rossi Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Bob's MI objective References: <416451B0.3060306@gnu.org> <20041006212652.GB13271@white> <41647352.50603@gnu.org> <20041007163122.GC14573@white> In-Reply-To: <20041007163122.GC14573@white> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-10/txt/msg00231.txt.bz2 > On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 06:36:02PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > >>>> > * I would like to know what GDB's policy is in regards to supporting old >>>> > MI protocols. ( I have received several opposing views on this ) >> >>> >>> By "supported" you're expecting? I've stated what people developing GDB >>> test, and given you a pretty clear hint as to the consequence. > > > Understood, here is what I am hoping for at a minimum. > > * GDB supports at least 1 MI protocol for an official release. > Supporting multiple MI protocols would be better for me, but > not a requirement. If GDB could support multiple protocols it > would improve the chances of a given front end working with a > given GDB. But by "support" what do you mean - even a dictionary definition. GDB includes at least one MI implementation, but that says nothing about how well it is either implemented or supported. > * GDB supports at least 1 MI protocol for a CVS snapshot. The > development MI protocol is probably not suitable for front ends > to work with, until it has stabilized and become official. So I am > hoping that GDB supports the last officially supported MI protocol > during it's development process, until the development protocol is > ready to become stable. > > >>> I was wondering more of what your project and its goals were. > > > CGDB is the front end I am working on, that said, I am actually not > doing all of the development of CGDB, just some of it. > > I am focusing more on libtgdb. This is basically a library that is > capable of communicating with GDB with any interface that GDB supports. Why not instead help with libgdb, and the problem of being able to directly link in the debugger? > It already supports annotate 2, now I am adding support for MI2. I would > like to make this library support annotate 2, MI2, MI3, ... > > Any front end developer can than take this library, and use it for there > front end, thus removing the burden of communicating with GDB. In > essence it is a libgdb that works with any GDB, not just one. The > library will be light weight, to the point where it can be used for many > applications, not just front ends ( embedded into tools that need simple > functionality like backtrace's, ... ). > > I am interested in making this library part of the GDB distro, but > wouldn't suggest such a thing until it works. I think it would be good > if GDB distributed not only the MI interface and doco, but a reference > implementation of dealing with the protocols. > > All of this said, I have a goal of making MI work and make sure that the > MI output commands actually adhere to the MI output syntax by testing > this in the testsuite. Probably the next step would be to make sure that > the MI input syntax follows the same rules. However, I have not made it > that far. Andrew