Re: How about remote MI?

[Bob Rossi <bob_rossi@cox.net>]

On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 09:43:20AM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 09:27:10AM -0400, Bob Rossi wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> I don't see any advantage over using the "set tty" command now that
> we've got it...

OK, the overhead of TCP would be pretty high just to solve that problem.
However, there is a slight problem, and I've made it clear in past
threads. That is, if a front end uses 'set tty' it doesn't know exactly
which process to send signals to.

Yes, this is a minor problem, and I haven't had significant issues with
it yet.

Bob Rossi