From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23837 invoked by alias); 7 Oct 2004 16:31:27 -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 23820 invoked from network); 7 Oct 2004 16:31:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lakermmtao02.cox.net) (68.230.240.37) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 7 Oct 2004 16:31:23 -0000 Received: from white ([68.9.64.121]) by lakermmtao02.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.03.04 201-2131-111-106-20040729) with ESMTP id <20041007163123.VCMP23897.lakermmtao02.cox.net@white>; Thu, 7 Oct 2004 12:31:23 -0400 Received: from bob by white with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CFbAp-0003qU-00; Thu, 07 Oct 2004 12:31:23 -0400 Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 17:20:00 -0000 From: Bob Rossi To: Andrew Cagney , g@white Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Bob's MI objective Message-ID: <20041007163122.GC14573@white> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Cagney , g@white, gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <416451B0.3060306@gnu.org> <20041006212652.GB13271@white> <41647352.50603@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <41647352.50603@gnu.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i X-SW-Source: 2004-10/txt/msg00223.txt.bz2 On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 06:36:02PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > > * I would like to know what GDB's policy is in regards to supporting old > > MI protocols. ( I have received several opposing views on this ) > > By "supported" you're expecting? I've stated what people developing GDB > test, and given you a pretty clear hint as to the consequence. Understood, here is what I am hoping for at a minimum. * GDB supports at least 1 MI protocol for an official release. Supporting multiple MI protocols would be better for me, but not a requirement. If GDB could support multiple protocols it would improve the chances of a given front end working with a given GDB. * GDB supports at least 1 MI protocol for a CVS snapshot. The development MI protocol is probably not suitable for front ends to work with, until it has stabilized and become official. So I am hoping that GDB supports the last officially supported MI protocol during it's development process, until the development protocol is ready to become stable. > I was wondering more of what your project and its goals were. CGDB is the front end I am working on, that said, I am actually not doing all of the development of CGDB, just some of it. I am focusing more on libtgdb. This is basically a library that is capable of communicating with GDB with any interface that GDB supports. It already supports annotate 2, now I am adding support for MI2. I would like to make this library support annotate 2, MI2, MI3, ... Any front end developer can than take this library, and use it for there front end, thus removing the burden of communicating with GDB. In essence it is a libgdb that works with any GDB, not just one. The library will be light weight, to the point where it can be used for many applications, not just front ends ( embedded into tools that need simple functionality like backtrace's, ... ). I am interested in making this library part of the GDB distro, but wouldn't suggest such a thing until it works. I think it would be good if GDB distributed not only the MI interface and doco, but a reference implementation of dealing with the protocols. All of this said, I have a goal of making MI work and make sure that the MI output commands actually adhere to the MI output syntax by testing this in the testsuite. Probably the next step would be to make sure that the MI input syntax follows the same rules. However, I have not made it that far. Do these goals seem reasonable? Thanks, Bob Rossi