From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29972 invoked by alias); 17 Jul 2003 00:54:12 -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 28146 invoked from network); 17 Jul 2003 00:54:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lakemtao02.cox.net) (68.1.17.243) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 17 Jul 2003 00:54:07 -0000 Received: from white ([68.9.191.65]) by lakemtao02.cox.net (InterMail vM.5.01.04.05 201-253-122-122-105-20011231) with ESMTP id <20030717005405.IAME24359.lakemtao02.cox.net@white> for ; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 20:54:05 -0400 Received: from bob by white with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 19cx26-0001sY-00 for ; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 20:54:06 -0400 Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 00:54:00 -0000 From: Bob Rossi To: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: libtgdb or libgdb Message-ID: <20030717005406.GB6987@white> Mail-Followup-To: gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <20030711023410.GA10222@white> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030711023410.GA10222@white> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i X-SW-Source: 2003-07/txt/msg00194.txt.bz2 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