From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25336 invoked by alias); 4 Feb 2003 16:41:43 -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 25329 invoked from network); 4 Feb 2003 16:41:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO pup) (68.14.80.122) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 4 Feb 2003 16:41:42 -0000 Received: from peter by pup with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18g68j-0000e6-00 for ; Tue, 04 Feb 2003 11:41:41 -0500 Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2003 16:41:00 -0000 From: Peter Kovacs To: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: obsoleting annotate level 2 Message-ID: <20030204164141.GB2354@kovax.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <20030204124435.GB2565@white> <15935.57871.225622.319870@localhost.redhat.com> <20030204161241.GA2354@kovax.org> <15935.60311.219378.382239@localhost.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="pWyiEgJYm5f9v55/" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <15935.60311.219378.382239@localhost.redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-PGP-Key: http://wwwkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9BA23416 X-PGP-Fingerprint: BBA2 6148 807D 9F3C D883 EF34 5278 DD02 9BA2 3416 X-SW-Source: 2003-02/txt/msg00077.txt.bz2 --pWyiEgJYm5f9v55/ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-length: 1708 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=3D2 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. > > 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. >=20 > 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". Unfortunately I don't have access to Apple's Project Builder. Do they offer the source to their debugger? 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. - Peter --=20 Peter D. Kovacs --pWyiEgJYm5f9v55/ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline Content-length: 232 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE+P+1FUnjdApuiNBYRApmVAJ9Rw8JXLrmjikMT8MVb4yw+/fOFdwCfdudY /qt1/HqWPpF9HZ14ArnAdzQ= =79FQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --pWyiEgJYm5f9v55/--