From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29863 invoked by alias); 4 Feb 2003 17:16:35 -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 29852 invoked from network); 4 Feb 2003 17:16:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (172.16.49.200) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 4 Feb 2003 17:16:34 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h14HGYf02651 for ; Tue, 4 Feb 2003 12:16:34 -0500 Received: from pobox.corp.redhat.com (pobox.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.156]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h14HGYa04584 for ; Tue, 4 Feb 2003 12:16:34 -0500 Received: from localhost.redhat.com (romulus-int.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.27.46]) by pobox.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h14HGVh02875 for ; Tue, 4 Feb 2003 12:16:32 -0500 Received: by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 469) id 72655FF79; Tue, 4 Feb 2003 12:20:42 -0500 (EST) From: Elena Zannoni MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15935.63082.332513.709831@localhost.redhat.com> Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2003 17:16:00 -0000 To: Peter Kovacs Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: obsoleting annotate level 2 In-Reply-To: <20030204164141.GB2354@kovax.org> References: <20030204124435.GB2565@white> <15935.57871.225622.319870@localhost.redhat.com> <20030204161241.GA2354@kovax.org> <15935.60311.219378.382239@localhost.redhat.com> <20030204164141.GB2354@kovax.org> X-SW-Source: 2003-02/txt/msg00080.txt.bz2 Peter Kovacs writes: > On Tue, Feb 04, 2003 at 11:34:31AM -0500, Elena Zannoni wrote: > > If you have to keep supporting the old gdb, you will need to support > > two interfaces to gdb. Unless you are importing MI into > > 4.17.gnat.3.14p-1. If you have no control over 4.17.gnat.3.14p-1, and > > supporting that is your primary goal, I don't see what FSF gdb can do > > to correct that, ie I see two conflicting goals here. > > Yes, we will continue to support --annotate=2 as well as the MI > interface. I'm not sure why you see 2 conflicting goals. Both > interfaces can be supported with no problems, after all we're not > interested in embedding our code into gdb itself. OK, just wanted to point that out. They seem a conflicting in the sense that one gdb is very old, and very different from the current FSF one, but if you are ok with maintaining 2 interfaces, there is no problem. > > > > As for the MI issues, I think we'd be willing to move over to the MI > > > interface if and when it supports some of the readline style of input. > > > > About readline, there was a conscious design decision to not provide > > it with MI, because the editing capabilities would be implemented at a > > different level, in the GUI console, not in gdb. With the interpreter > > changes the console becomes now a concrete possibility. BTW, you may > > want to take a look at Apple's Project Builder, I don't know what > > level of editing they provided with their console. > > I'm not sure I understand this. How can the stand-alone GUI query gdb > for a list of symbol names? For example, I type break m, and it > completes to "main". > there is a bug open against the lack of a 'completion' kind of command in MI. See bug 953 in http://sources.redhat.com/gdb/bugs/ > Unfortunately I don't have access to Apple's Project Builder. Do they > offer the source to their debugger? > I think they do on their website. I don't have a pointer handy, sorry. > gdb's console is already quite capable, and many people are extremely > familiar with it. I think it would be a shame if we have to completely > reimplement a console front-end to gdb. > insight does this too. Maybe that's another place to look. elena > - Peter > > -- > Peter D. Kovacs