From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11812 invoked by alias); 6 Nov 2002 23:56:52 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 11805 invoked from network); 6 Nov 2002 23:56:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (216.138.202.10) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 6 Nov 2002 23:56:51 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A285F3CC5; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 18:56:52 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3DC9AC44.2090209@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 15:56:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020824 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Paul A. Clarke" Cc: Scott Moser , Jelmer Vernooij , Eli Zaretskii , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] plugin patch References: <20021106145415.GA2350@charis.vernstok> <20021106155151.GA2522@charis.vernstok> <3DC94DD8.10009@redhat.com> <1036623919.539.145.camel@pclarke> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-11/txt/msg00148.txt.bz2 > > I agree that the above cons are reasonable expectations, but it would > seem the same issues would arise regardless if the code is a plug-in or > just code which is bolted on and rebuilt every time. The maintenance > issues are the same. Indeed, if some bolted-on code is pulled into the > GDB base, then the GDB team become obligated to either maintain it > enough to get a successful build, or remove it entirely. At least with > a plug-in, the maintenance of the plug-in is the responsibility of the > maintainter of the plug-in, not the GDB team. If someone contributes a new module to GDB then, most likely, the contributor will become the maintainer - both the GDB user community and the GDB developer community benefit. > (2) A long term MI objective is to define a set of interfaces that > > both > >> MI and the CLI can use. FernandoN made reference to this in responce > > to > >> your original post. > > > That's interesting, and I haven't heard about this before. It sounds > like these interfaces would then also be good candidates for a plug-in > interface. Would you agree? Maybe we could help? Per my other reply, this is simply ``good design'. > Just as an example, using Scott's plug-in enabling patch, I created a > plug-in which detects memory leaks and bad calls to free (any address > not previously returned by an allocation function). (I'd be happy to > share it with the list if anyone is interested.) One can > enable/suspend/resume/disable the detection logic at any time, and a > full report, including full backtraces is available. Cool! Can you contribute it to the FSF so that it can be integrated into GDB? Andrew