From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24798 invoked by alias); 8 May 2012 14:58:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 24789 invoked by uid 22791); 8 May 2012 14:58:34 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,KHOP_RCVD_TRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-yx0-f169.google.com (HELO mail-yx0-f169.google.com) (209.85.213.169) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 08 May 2012 14:58:21 +0000 Received: by yenm8 with SMTP id m8so6654152yen.0 for ; Tue, 08 May 2012 07:58:20 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.236.136.136 with SMTP id w8mr14162714yhi.81.1336489100789; Tue, 08 May 2012 07:58:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.236.200.202 with HTTP; Tue, 8 May 2012 07:58:20 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <132323B5-DF29-48D0-BAD2-A1F53D4EE846@dell.com> References: <87vck7wxs7.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <132323B5-DF29-48D0-BAD2-A1F53D4EE846@dell.com> Date: Tue, 08 May 2012 14:58:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: GDB plugin From: Matt Rice To: Paul_Koning@dell.com Cc: teawater@gmail.com, tromey@redhat.com, abhijit.k.halder@gmail.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2012-05/txt/msg00231.txt.bz2 On 5/8/12, Paul_Koning@dell.com wrote: > > On May 8, 2012, at 10:38 AM, Matt Rice wrote: > >> On 5/7/12, Hui Zhu wrote: >>> On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 4:18 AM, Tom Tromey wrote: >>>>>>>>> "Abhijit" == Abhijit Halder writes: >>>> >>>> Abhijit> Is there any way to load a GDB plugin (shared library having >>>> extended >>>> Abhijit> functionality) in current GDB? I am planning to develop one. >>>> Need >>>> Abhijit> yours opinion on this. >>>> >>>> There is a little bit of this for the JIT functionality. >>>> >>>> Generic plugins are trouble because they tend to fix the API -- but we >>>> want to be able to change the API as needed. The JIT approach avoided >>>> this by exporting a custom, minimal API. >>>> >>>> What exactly are you planning to do? >>>> >>>> Tom >>> >>> I think the api is not a big trouble, the Linux kernel's api is always >>> change. But lkm is still alive. I use some ifdef to make KGTP can be >>> work from 2.6.18 to upstream. I think if GDB can supply some >>> interface to get the api version, support different api is not very >>> hard. >> >> all but a few of the kernel modules are actually shipped with the kernel >> though. >> nor does the kernel have a python interpreter embedded in it. > > I'm confused. GDB is not a kernel component, so a GDB plugin isn't a kernel > module. How did lkm get brought into the discussion? it was used as an example of an unstable API