Re: duplicated code in gdb and gdbserver

[Doug Evans <dje@google.com>]

On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 3:37 PM, Frank Ch. Eigler <fche@redhat.com> wrote:
> Hi -
>
> On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 06:35:07PM -0500, Joel Brobecker wrote:
>> > And with such a library, I'd make it so that "non-gdb tools" could use
>> > it too.  For example, it would make easier the building of gdbservers
>> > that need to speak something other than the remote protocol.
>>
>> I'm not entirely crazy about the idea of a public API
>> [...]
>> What I would much rather see, is something that allows projects to
>> easily implement the client-side part of the remote protocol. [...]
>
> That "something" is exactly what I was talking about: a remote protocol
> client API.

[For reference sake, I think there at least two related but
independent concepts here: what goes over the wire, and an API for
that.]

I think the remote protocol itself is getting old.
In days of multiple threads, inferiors, and architectures, plus an
expanding feature set, ISTM IWBN to start over.  We can still support
the remote protocol for however long is appropriate of course.  I can
imagine the remote protocol being (at least mostly) a degenerate case
of its successor.

However, the fact that people are willing to talk about a client side
API for the remote protocol reaffirms my belief that publishing an API
is something the gdb community can take on and do.   Such an API could
result in either more subroutine calls or packets (IOW native-gdb or
gdb+gdbserver).
[For completeness sake, I think the GNU tools community should take on
APIs for more than just this, but that's a separate thread. :-)]

Also, I've been wondering if something like protobufs would be reasonable here.
ref: http://code.google.com/p/protobuf/