From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26753 invoked by alias); 15 Jul 2006 14:57:01 -0000 Received: (qmail 26728 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Jul 2006 14:56:59 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from viper.snap.net.nz (HELO viper.snap.net.nz) (202.37.101.8) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sat, 15 Jul 2006 14:56:52 +0000 Received: from kahikatea.snap.net.nz (p202-124-112-112.snap.net.nz [202.124.112.112]) by viper.snap.net.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4C1F7702F6; Sun, 16 Jul 2006 02:56:48 +1200 (NZST) Received: by kahikatea.snap.net.nz (Postfix, from userid 500) id 6C31E1D3550; Sun, 16 Jul 2006 02:55:36 +1200 (NZST) From: Nick Roberts MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <17593.486.472132.416318@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 15:13:00 -0000 To: teawater Cc: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: How about remote MI? In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: VM 7.19 under Emacs 22.0.50.37 X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-07/txt/msg00098.txt.bz2 > In May, I release GDBRUI(http://sourceforge.net/projects/gdbrui/) that > is an interpreter to make GDB can be controlled by the other programe > through TCP. But some people ask me why not extend MI to support TCP. > Now, I think this idea is cool. Does GDB MI support TCP? Maybe I can > extend MI to support TCP. How do you think about it? gdbserver supports TCP. You can control a remote program using MI and gdbserver. MI is a formal interface for use by front ends. I'm not sure that gdbrui, as you describe it, fills the same role > BTW, I am trying to make vim2gdb (An vim plug-in to make vim can debug > code through GDB. It use GDBRUI in before.) support MI. But the MI > output format is not very easy to parse. Could some people recommend a > programe or example that parse the MI output for me? If not, I think I > will use lex to parse it. I think the idea is that the front end parses it directly. Generating an intermediate langusage just adds to the complexity. If you think MI can be improved then please make suggestions. -- Nick http://www.inet.net.nz/~nickrob