From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18983 invoked by alias); 17 Jul 2006 13:26:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 18974 invoked by uid 22791); 17 Jul 2006 13:26:24 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from eastrmmtao03.cox.net (HELO eastrmmtao03.cox.net) (68.230.240.36) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 17 Jul 2006 13:26:22 +0000 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([68.9.66.48]) by eastrmmtao03.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.06.01 201-2131-130-101-20060113) with ESMTP id <20060717132619.NPPR23863.eastrmmtao03.cox.net@localhost.localdomain>; Mon, 17 Jul 2006 09:26:19 -0400 Received: from bob by localhost.localdomain with local (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1G2T7u-0002mP-32; Mon, 17 Jul 2006 09:27:10 -0400 Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 13:43:00 -0000 From: Bob Rossi To: teawater , gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: How about remote MI? Message-ID: <20060717132709.GB513@brasko.net> References: <20060717005720.GA29042@nevyn.them.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060717005720.GA29042@nevyn.them.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 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: 2006-07/txt/msg00115.txt.bz2 On Sun, Jul 16, 2006 at 08:57:20PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Sat, Jul 15, 2006 at 09:50:54PM +0800, teawater wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > > > In May, I release GDBRUI(http://sourceforge.net/projects/gdbrui/) that > > is an interpreter to make GDB can be controlled by the other programe > > through TCP. But some people ask me why not extend MI to support TCP. > > Now, I think this idea is cool. Does GDB MI support TCP? Maybe I can > > extend MI to support TCP. How do you think about it? > > I do not see the point. GDB/MI talks to a terminal or a pipe. If you > want to connect that pipe to a TCP socket, GDB doesn't need to know > that it's a socket. > > You can use netcat to connect an arbitrary process to a bidirectional TCP > socket. There's a bunch of other similar tools, too. There ia at least one possibility I can think of that would improve upon GDB/MI by having it connect back to the FE via a TCP socket. That is, it would avoid the 'tty' issue, by allowing the FE to put a single pty between the FE and GDB, and having all the MI protocol on a totally separate channel. Bob Rossi