Re: [RFC] plugin/extension interface

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>]

On Fri, Dec 02, 2005 at 04:57:01PM -0800, Jim Blandy wrote:
> On 12/2/05, Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org> wrote:
> > And every one of these things you've described doing with debuggers,
> > would require a _DIFFERENT_ plugin interface.  It would be a nightmare
> > to add this to today's GDB!
> 
> Oh, I figured we'd just let the plugin code #include GDB's headers
> directly, so they could get at whatever they wanted.
> 
> ... okay, that does sound like a nightmare.

Now we're communicating :-)

For the record, here's my overall point in this thread.  We have some
very good abstraction layers already: in particular, I'm talking about
the remote protocol, and the MI/interpreters mechanism.  I want GDB to
be more extensible, but I believe that those protocols are the best way
to do it.  They both have limitations for this kind of use, because
they aren't used that way yet; but what we need to do is commit to
using them, then bite the bullet and begin improving them to meet our
needs.

That way we can keep the interfaces coherent, and hopefully,
documented at or above today's levels.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC