RE: libtgdb or libgdb

RE: libtgdb or libgdb

[Hassan Aurag]

I'd actually love that. It is indeed a real pain to find anything that
presents the developer with a nice interface to debugging symbols.

Where can it be downloaded?


-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Rossi [mailto:bob@brasko.net]
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 10:34 PM
To: gdb@sources.redhat.com
Subject: libtgdb or libgdb


Hi,

As some of you may know, I am working on a front end to gdb called cgdb.
In order to communicate with gdb, I wrote a library called libtgdb (
Trivial gdb ). This gives a simple interface for the front end to work
with. Thus, completely separating the gdb-specific code from the front
end.

As of know, libtgdb supports annotate level 2 communication. Starting
next month, I plan to add mi support. It can end up supporting annotate
level 1 if necessary in the future.

Since I have been subscribed to the gdb list, I have seen many inquiries 
about libgdb. Which seems to be no longer supported. I was thinking that
it might be reasonable to have libtgdb be shipped with gdb's sources as
a library that any front end can use to interface with gdb. Of course it
would be as general purpose as possible, and capable of supporting all
of gdb's features when complete.

One major difference between libtgdb and libgdb is that
   1. libtgdb is a separate library, not linked against gdb's sources.
   2. libtgdb does not have to be compiled to work with a single gdb, 
   it is backwards compatible and will work with any gdb.

What does everyone think? Does this make any sense? Is this too ambitious?

My main goal, is too make front end's able to integrate with gdb easily.
I have spent *far* to much time trying to figure out the gdb specific
stuff. It just doesn't make sense reproducing the code in all of the
front ends. They all end up having there own bugs, which is *very* annoying.
In general, the quality of front ends could be improved, if developers
were not trying to figure out the tricks of getting gdb to do certain
things.

Thanks,
Bob Rossi

Re: libtgdb or libgdb

['Bob Rossi']

Well, it started out as a separate project. http://tgdb.sourceforge.net/
Then, since cgdb was the only project that used it, we put it into the
cgdb source ( It is completely modular ). http://cgdb.sourceforge.net/

Depending on the demand for such a library, it might end up back at 
tgdb.sourceforge.net ... or wherever suggestions take it. If there is
no interest for such a library, then it may stay with cgdb.

I am currently talking to the author of ctrlgdb about integrating our
efforts with tgdb. I really believe there is a need for such a library.

To be honest, the interface isn't professional grade yet. However, up
till now, it does everything I need it to.

I am really wondering what most of the gdb developers think.

Bob Rossi

On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 07:27:21AM -0400, Hassan Aurag wrote:
> I'd actually love that. It is indeed a real pain to find anything that
> presents the developer with a nice interface to debugging symbols.
> 
> Where can it be downloaded?
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bob Rossi [mailto:bob@brasko.net]
> Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 10:34 PM
> To: gdb@sources.redhat.com
> Subject: libtgdb or libgdb
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> As some of you may know, I am working on a front end to gdb called cgdb.
> In order to communicate with gdb, I wrote a library called libtgdb (
> Trivial gdb ). This gives a simple interface for the front end to work
> with. Thus, completely separating the gdb-specific code from the front
> end.
> 
> As of know, libtgdb supports annotate level 2 communication. Starting
> next month, I plan to add mi support. It can end up supporting annotate
> level 1 if necessary in the future.
> 
> Since I have been subscribed to the gdb list, I have seen many inquiries 
> about libgdb. Which seems to be no longer supported. I was thinking that
> it might be reasonable to have libtgdb be shipped with gdb's sources as
> a library that any front end can use to interface with gdb. Of course it
> would be as general purpose as possible, and capable of supporting all
> of gdb's features when complete.
> 
> One major difference between libtgdb and libgdb is that
>    1. libtgdb is a separate library, not linked against gdb's sources.
>    2. libtgdb does not have to be compiled to work with a single gdb, 
>    it is backwards compatible and will work with any gdb.
> 
> What does everyone think? Does this make any sense? Is this too ambitious?
> 
> My main goal, is too make front end's able to integrate with gdb easily.
> I have spent *far* to much time trying to figure out the gdb specific
> stuff. It just doesn't make sense reproducing the code in all of the
> front ends. They all end up having there own bugs, which is *very* annoying.
> In general, the quality of front ends could be improved, if developers
> were not trying to figure out the tricks of getting gdb to do certain
> things.
> 
> Thanks,
> Bob Rossi
> 
> 

libtgdb or libgdb

[Bob Rossi]

Hi,

As some of you may know, I am working on a front end to gdb called cgdb.
In order to communicate with gdb, I wrote a library called libtgdb (
Trivial gdb ). This gives a simple interface for the front end to work
with. Thus, completely separating the gdb-specific code from the front
end.

As of know, libtgdb supports annotate level 2 communication. Starting
next month, I plan to add mi support. It can end up supporting annotate
level 1 if necessary in the future.

Since I have been subscribed to the gdb list, I have seen many inquiries 
about libgdb. Which seems to be no longer supported. I was thinking that
it might be reasonable to have libtgdb be shipped with gdb's sources as
a library that any front end can use to interface with gdb. Of course it
would be as general purpose as possible, and capable of supporting all
of gdb's features when complete.

One major difference between libtgdb and libgdb is that
   1. libtgdb is a separate library, not linked against gdb's sources.
   2. libtgdb does not have to be compiled to work with a single gdb, 
   it is backwards compatible and will work with any gdb.

What does everyone think? Does this make any sense? Is this too ambitious?

My main goal, is too make front end's able to integrate with gdb easily.
I have spent *far* to much time trying to figure out the gdb specific
stuff. It just doesn't make sense reproducing the code in all of the
front ends. They all end up having there own bugs, which is *very* annoying.
In general, the quality of front ends could be improved, if developers
were not trying to figure out the tricks of getting gdb to do certain
things.

Thanks,
Bob Rossi

Re: libtgdb or libgdb

[Bob Rossi]

Was the Email below ignored because of bad timing ( 6.0 ) release?

Or because no one is interested in the idea? I find it very frustrating 
when there is not a single response.

Bob Rossi

On Thu, Jul 10, 2003 at 10:34:10PM -0400, Bob Rossi wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> As some of you may know, I am working on a front end to gdb called cgdb.
> In order to communicate with gdb, I wrote a library called libtgdb (
> Trivial gdb ). This gives a simple interface for the front end to work
> with. Thus, completely separating the gdb-specific code from the front
> end.
> 
> As of know, libtgdb supports annotate level 2 communication. Starting
> next month, I plan to add mi support. It can end up supporting annotate
> level 1 if necessary in the future.
> 
> Since I have been subscribed to the gdb list, I have seen many inquiries 
> about libgdb. Which seems to be no longer supported. I was thinking that
> it might be reasonable to have libtgdb be shipped with gdb's sources as
> a library that any front end can use to interface with gdb. Of course it
> would be as general purpose as possible, and capable of supporting all
> of gdb's features when complete.
> 
> One major difference between libtgdb and libgdb is that
>    1. libtgdb is a separate library, not linked against gdb's sources.
>    2. libtgdb does not have to be compiled to work with a single gdb, 
>    it is backwards compatible and will work with any gdb.
> 
> What does everyone think? Does this make any sense? Is this too ambitious?
> 
> My main goal, is too make front end's able to integrate with gdb easily.
> I have spent *far* to much time trying to figure out the gdb specific
> stuff. It just doesn't make sense reproducing the code in all of the
> front ends. They all end up having there own bugs, which is *very* annoying.
> In general, the quality of front ends could be improved, if developers
> were not trying to figure out the tricks of getting gdb to do certain
> things.
> 
> Thanks,
> Bob Rossi

Re: libtgdb or libgdb

[Alain Magloire]

> 
> Was the Email below ignored because of bad timing ( 6.0 ) release?
> 
> Or because no one is interested in the idea? I find it very frustrating 
> when there is not a single response.
> 

8-)

However, I did try a few times to reach the tgdb or cgdb list on sourceforge list to no avail.
(Including personal emails).

The "problem"(or the advantage) with libgdb is the license.

What would be the license of such project ?

certainly would love to share my experience with MI and see the code evolve.

> Bob Rossi
> 
> On Thu, Jul 10, 2003 at 10:34:10PM -0400, Bob Rossi wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > As some of you may know, I am working on a front end to gdb called cgdb.
> > In order to communicate with gdb, I wrote a library called libtgdb (
> > Trivial gdb ). This gives a simple interface for the front end to work
> > with. Thus, completely separating the gdb-specific code from the front
> > end.
> > 
> > As of know, libtgdb supports annotate level 2 communication. Starting
> > next month, I plan to add mi support. It can end up supporting annotate
> > level 1 if necessary in the future.
> > 
> > Since I have been subscribed to the gdb list, I have seen many inquiries 
> > about libgdb. Which seems to be no longer supported. I was thinking that
> > it might be reasonable to have libtgdb be shipped with gdb's sources as
> > a library that any front end can use to interface with gdb. Of course it
> > would be as general purpose as possible, and capable of supporting all
> > of gdb's features when complete.
> > 
> > One major difference between libtgdb and libgdb is that
> >    1. libtgdb is a separate library, not linked against gdb's sources.
> >    2. libtgdb does not have to be compiled to work with a single gdb, 
> >    it is backwards compatible and will work with any gdb.
> > 
> > What does everyone think? Does this make any sense? Is this too ambitious?
> > 
> > My main goal, is too make front end's able to integrate with gdb easily.
> > I have spent *far* to much time trying to figure out the gdb specific
> > stuff. It just doesn't make sense reproducing the code in all of the
> > front ends. They all end up having there own bugs, which is *very* annoying.
> > In general, the quality of front ends could be improved, if developers
> > were not trying to figure out the tricks of getting gdb to do certain
> > things.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Bob Rossi
> 


-- 
au revoir, alain
----
Aussi haut que l'on soit assis, on est toujours assis que sur son cul !!!

Re: libtgdb or libgdb

[Bob Rossi]

Well, I am not sure about the license. To me, thats not really a big
deal. It will defiantly be under the GPL, however, I don't know what to
do with the copyright.

Is there any advantage to making it GPL and keeping the copyright or 
making it LGPL and giving the copyright to the FSF?

Would either of those scenarios effect companies?

Thanks,
Bob Rossi

On Thu, Jul 17, 2003 at 11:35:17AM -0400, Alain Magloire wrote:
> > 
> > Was the Email below ignored because of bad timing ( 6.0 ) release?
> > 
> > Or because no one is interested in the idea? I find it very frustrating 
> > when there is not a single response.
> > 
> 
> 8-)
> 
> However, I did try a few times to reach the tgdb or cgdb list on sourceforge list to no avail.
> (Including personal emails).
> 
> The "problem"(or the advantage) with libgdb is the license.
> 
> What would be the license of such project ?
> 
> certainly would love to share my experience with MI and see the code evolve.
> 
> > Bob Rossi
> > 
> > On Thu, Jul 10, 2003 at 10:34:10PM -0400, Bob Rossi wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > As some of you may know, I am working on a front end to gdb called cgdb.
> > > In order to communicate with gdb, I wrote a library called libtgdb (
> > > Trivial gdb ). This gives a simple interface for the front end to work
> > > with. Thus, completely separating the gdb-specific code from the front
> > > end.
> > > 
> > > As of know, libtgdb supports annotate level 2 communication. Starting
> > > next month, I plan to add mi support. It can end up supporting annotate
> > > level 1 if necessary in the future.
> > > 
> > > Since I have been subscribed to the gdb list, I have seen many inquiries 
> > > about libgdb. Which seems to be no longer supported. I was thinking that
> > > it might be reasonable to have libtgdb be shipped with gdb's sources as
> > > a library that any front end can use to interface with gdb. Of course it
> > > would be as general purpose as possible, and capable of supporting all
> > > of gdb's features when complete.
> > > 
> > > One major difference between libtgdb and libgdb is that
> > >    1. libtgdb is a separate library, not linked against gdb's sources.
> > >    2. libtgdb does not have to be compiled to work with a single gdb, 
> > >    it is backwards compatible and will work with any gdb.
> > > 
> > > What does everyone think? Does this make any sense? Is this too ambitious?
> > > 
> > > My main goal, is too make front end's able to integrate with gdb easily.
> > > I have spent *far* to much time trying to figure out the gdb specific
> > > stuff. It just doesn't make sense reproducing the code in all of the
> > > front ends. They all end up having there own bugs, which is *very* annoying.
> > > In general, the quality of front ends could be improved, if developers
> > > were not trying to figure out the tricks of getting gdb to do certain
> > > things.
> > > 
> > > Thanks,
> > > Bob Rossi
> > 
> 
> 
> -- 
> au revoir, alain
> ----
> Aussi haut que l'on soit assis, on est toujours assis que sur son cul !!!

Re: libtgdb or libgdb

[Kevin Buettner]

On Jul 17,  4:49pm, Bob Rossi wrote:

> Well, I am not sure about the license. To me, thats not really a big
> deal. It will defiantly be under the GPL, however, I don't know what to
> do with the copyright.

The license is a big deal.  The license you choose will likely
determine how widely your library is used or even if it is used at
all.

> Is there any advantage to making it GPL and keeping the copyright or 
> making it LGPL and giving the copyright to the FSF?

If you make the licesne GPL, but retain the copyright, you (and only
you) have the option of relicensing the software under other terms.
These terms might include payment of a fee to you in exchange for a
license which allows the library to be linked against proprietary
software.

If you assign the copyright to the FSF and also persuade the FSF to
license your library under the LGPL, then it will be possible for
non-free software to link against your library.  However, given that
your library would provide a way for non-free software to use the
facilities available in GDB (which is GPL'd software in the GNU
project), the FSF might not be willing to accept your library.

> Would either of those scenarios effect companies?

Yes.  Using the LGPL would allow proprietary software to be linked
against your library.  Using the GPL would disallow this unless you
provide alternate licensing terms for proprietary software.

Kevin