Re: GDB and Insight CVS repositories.

[Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>]

Brendan Simon wrote:

> From a purist point of view I think it would be better to keep the packages
> seperate, regardless of whether Insight is built as a seperate application or
> an integrated application.  If it is relatively simple to unpack Insight
> sources into a seperate sub directory of the GDB source then this sounds like
> it would keep RMS happy and keep the GUI repository seperate from the GDB
> repository.  I guess this is akin to gcc-core, gcc-c++, gcc-fortran, etc
> distribution archives.  I guess the difference is that all these components
> are officialy accepted by GNU.
> 
> If this was to happen, would this mean that gdb would require patches ?

At present yes.  However, I believe that that can be fixed.
See separate my separate e-mail about --with-gdb-interpreter=...  No one
has sat down and taken the time to revamp the startup code so that a
second interpreter can be dropped on - not hard, just needs to be done.

> 
> Does GDB have an external API (interprocess comms, TCP/UDP sockets) so that
> other GUIs could communicate without having to parse CLI output ?

Hmm, your doing well.  My things to do today includes write up an
additional e-mail putting forward a way that GDB can progress on this
issue.

	Andrew