Re: libtgdb or libgdb

[Bob Rossi <bob@brasko.net>]

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