From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16975 invoked by alias); 3 Dec 2005 02:32:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 16956 invoked by uid 22791); 3 Dec 2005 02:31:59 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31.1) with ESMTP; Sat, 03 Dec 2005 02:31:58 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1EiNBq-0005sf-E9; Fri, 02 Dec 2005 21:31:54 -0500 Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 02:32:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Jim Blandy Cc: Mark Kettenis , gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFC] plugin/extension interface Message-ID: <20051203023154.GA22527@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Jim Blandy , Mark Kettenis , gdb@sourceware.org References: <439090FE.8040502@st.com> <200512021936.jB2JaZ6n014666@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <8f2776cb0512021412n17d2a8b2rf8cb4a48daa9449e@mail.gmail.com> <200512022241.jB2Mf3Fk024314@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <8f2776cb0512021507m52b9d491gd4ddc0ceaab594ba@mail.gmail.com> <20051202233207.GA19812@nevyn.them.org> <8f2776cb0512021657i3f780f77sb1294b51753ffaaa@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <8f2776cb0512021657i3f780f77sb1294b51753ffaaa@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2005-12/txt/msg00017.txt.bz2 On Fri, Dec 02, 2005 at 04:57:01PM -0800, Jim Blandy wrote: > On 12/2/05, Daniel Jacobowitz 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