RE: Re: how to use libgdb ?

RE: Re: how to use libgdb ?

[leiming]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4855 bytes --]


  hi!
  I want to build a small GUI development environment and I
am required to integrate GNU gdb into it. In the before discussions,
you mentioned the gdb/mi. I do want to know if gdb/mi can complete 
the task.Can you give me a hand?
  If this can do it,where may I find a more detailed related user 
manual for  the gdb manual is too simple?
  Thank you!

leiming         





----- Original Message -----
From:Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>
To:Scott Moser <ssmoser@us.ibm.com>
Subject:Re: how to use libgdb ?
Date:Fri, 20 Sep 2002 03:07:03 +0800
 >On Thu, Sep 19, 2002 at 11:00:37AM -0500, Scott Moser wrote:
 >> On Thu, 19 Sep 2002, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
 >> 
 >> > On Thu, Sep 19, 2002 at 09:38:40AM +0530, Biswapesh Chattopadhyay wrote:
 >> > > Hi list
 >> > >
 >> > > I'm one of the developers of Anjuta (http://anjuta.sf.net/), an IDE for
 >> > > GNOME. Currently, we are using a spawned subprocess for GDB interaction.
 >> > > This works fairly well, but obviously a shared library with a nice (and
 >> > > reasoinably stable) API would be very helpful for IDE developers. So, my
 >> > > question is: if GDB build process already builds libgdb.a, would any
 >> > > patches to make it build a shared libgdb.so be accepted into the main
 >> > > tree ? It might be very useful, for example, for gnome-debug, which is
 >> > > an upcoming component for debugging applications using a nice GUI
 >> > > interface. This might speed up the responsiveness and enable us to do
 >> > > more advanced stuff (such as tracing multiple threads simultaneously).
 >> >
 >> > They would probably not be accepted - or useful, since we don't plan to
 >> > maintain a stable ABI.  What we do maintain is a stable
 >> > machine-parseable interface - MI.  See the documentation or list
 >> > archives for more about that if you're not familiar with it.
 >> 
 >>    While its not my place to say whether or not the patches would be
 >> accepted, I do think they would be at least somewhat useful.
 >>    The ABI doesn't need to be stable right away, or even any time in the
 >> near future.  But it does seem like some people have an interest in
 >> seeing a libGDB in the short term and for sure in the long term.
 >>    I can think of many benefits to moving gdb to a small application
 >> that gains gets all its functionality from a library, but can't think of
 >> many cons.
 >>    pros:
 >>       allow other projects to use libgdb.so (while they know that it is
 >> not a stable backwards compatible ABI)
 >>       performance and functionality gains over the fork and pipe method
 >> for those apps.
 >>       through the use of libgdb.so by early adopters, learning what
 >> people would use it for, how they would use it... so that a better
 >> stable ABI *could* be made later.
 >>       allow plugins/extensions to gdb to be written in a much more cross
 >> platform manner.
 >> 
 >>    cons:
 >>       implied ABI stability.
 >> 
 >>    My feeling is that the pros outweigh the cons in this situation.  the
 >> implied ABI stability is only *implied*.  One suggestion to make sure no
 >> one thinks that you're implying it is would be to just printf inside _init() of
 >> that library with something like the following if the main executable
 >> isn't named gdb:
 >>    "This is not a stable ABI.  You probably shouldn't be using it unless
 >> you *really* know what you're doing.  And even then, maybe you shouldn't
 >> be using it.  Also, this code is GPL, if your application uses it, then
 >> it are bound to the terms of the GPL."
 >> 
 >>    What would it really hurt to have take this step now?  Please feel
 >> free add more negitive affects of doing this, maybe I'm just missing
 >> something.
 >
 >The point is that there will never be a stable ABI.  Speaking just for
 >myself, I don't want a hack like this that we can never support.  We
 >have a machine interface - MI - and it should give you everything you
 >need; if you think communication with GDB has any performance
 >implications, you need to think about it a little more.  If you think
 >there are functionality gains from bypassing MI then MI should be
 >extended.
 >
 >For plugins, the right thing to do is to _first_ define an ABI to
 >export to plugins, and then export it portably via (say) a table of
 >function pointers.
 >
 >-- 
 >Daniel Jacobowitz
 >MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer
 >
 >

______________________________________

===================================================================
ÐÂÀËÃâ·Ñµç×ÓÓÊÏä (http://mail.sina.com.cn)
ÐÂÀ˶þÊÖÊг¡£ºÒ»ÔªÍ¶È룬ʮ·Ö¾ªÏ²£¬°Ù·ÖÂúÒâ (http://classad.sina.com.cn/2shou/)
ÊýÍòÕÅÊÖ»úͼƬÊýÍòÊ׶ÌÐÅÁåÉùÈÎÄãÌôÑ¡£¬Ã¿Ì춼ÓиüР(http://sms.sina.com.cn/cgi-bin/sms/smspic.cgi)

RE: Re: how to use libgdb ?

[leiming]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3066 bytes --]


hi!
Thank you!
If I want to build my GUI IDE in cygwin+win2000 ,is your approach
right to finish it?

leiming
<blackhorse_linux@sina.com>


----- Original Message -----
From:Biswapesh Chattopadhyay <biswapesh_chatterjee@tcscal.co.in>
To:GDB List <gdb@sources.redhat.com>
Subject:Re: how to use libgdb ?
Date:Thu, 19 Sep 2002 12:38:40 +0800
 >Hi list
 >
 >I'm one of the developers of Anjuta (http://anjuta.sf.net/), an IDE for
 >GNOME. Currently, we are using a spawned subprocess for GDB interaction.
 >This works fairly well, but obviously a shared library with a nice (and
 >reasoinably stable) API would be very helpful for IDE developers. So, my
 >question is: if GDB build process already builds libgdb.a, would any
 >patches to make it build a shared libgdb.so be accepted into the main
 >tree ? It might be very useful, for example, for gnome-debug, which is
 >an upcoming component for debugging applications using a nice GUI
 >interface. This might speed up the responsiveness and enable us to do
 >more advanced stuff (such as tracing multiple threads simultaneously).
 >
 >Plug: If you are on Linux, please try out Anjuta CVS - you can debug
 >Anjuta using Anjuta and the debugger interface is really nice !
 >
 >Thanks in advance.
 >Biswa.
 >
 >
 >> Well,
 >> there really is no libgdb at this point.
 >> There has been some talk of one by developers as something they'd
 >> eventually like to do, but right not there is nothing available.
 >> 
 >>    However, the gdb build process (at least on linux) created libgdb.a
 >> and then builds main.c with that to create gdb.  It is possible to
 >> create libgdb.so rather than libgdb.a and dynamically link to the new
 >> library.  It just takes some fiddling with the Makefile that configure
 >> created.
 >>    I've not done extensive testing on it, but it seems to work for me.
 >> If you wanted to build your own app on that, you could get sample usage
 >> from the main.c file
 >> 
 >>    I guess it should be pointed out, though, that the libgdb.so that you
 >> create is a GPL'd work, so even dynamically linking to it then requires
 >> that you GPL your application as well.
 >> 
 >> Scott Moser
 >> Software Engineer; Linux Technology Center
 >> IBM Corp., Austin, Tx
 >> (512) 838-1533   T/L: 678-1533
 >> ssmoser@us.ibm.com , internal zip: 9812
 >> 
 >> On Wed, 18 Sep 2002, leiming wrote:
 >> 
 >> >
 >> >   hi!
 >> >   Who has used libgdb to integrate gdb into GUI developement?
 >> > Can you tell me the detailed step or provide some manual?
 >> >
 >> >   Thanks a lot!
 >> >
 >> > leiming
 >> > <blackhorse_linux@sina.com>
 >> >
 >> 
 >> 
 >
 >
 >
 >

______________________________________

===================================================================
ÐÂÀËÃâ·Ñµç×ÓÓÊÏä (http://mail.sina.com.cn)
ÐÂÀ˶þÊÖÊг¡£ºÒ»ÔªÍ¶È룬ʮ·Ö¾ªÏ²£¬°Ù·ÖÂúÒâ (http://classad.sina.com.cn/2shou/)
ÊýÍòÕÅÊÖ»úͼƬÊýÍòÊ׶ÌÐÅÁåÉùÈÎÄãÌôÑ¡£¬Ã¿Ì춼ÓиüР(http://sms.sina.com.cn/cgi-bin/sms/smspic.cgi)

RE: Re: how to use libgdb ?

[Biswapesh Chattopadhyay]

On Thu, 2002-09-19 at 13:30, leiming wrote:
> hi!
> 
> Thank you!
> If I want to build my GUI IDE in cygwin+win2000 ,is your approach
> right to finish it?

I don't see why not. As long as pipe() and fork() works OK in Cygwin (I
think they do) you should be OK. If you want to avoid Cygwin, you can
also use NT pipe() with CreateProcess() I think.

Rgds,
Biswa.