From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4793 invoked by alias); 7 Oct 2010 18:47:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 4782 invoked by uid 22791); 7 Oct 2010 18:47:33 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 07 Oct 2010 18:47:28 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E7542BAC47; Thu, 7 Oct 2010 14:47:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id JuczoVW8QJdj; Thu, 7 Oct 2010 14:47:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5EB52BAC74; Thu, 7 Oct 2010 14:47:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 97A68F5895; Thu, 7 Oct 2010 11:47:22 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2010 18:47:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Paul Koning Cc: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: GDB code reuse for gdbserver? Message-ID: <20101007184722.GG2813@adacore.com> References: <2CFC588D-558C-42F0-B7F1-BE6D68E9BA15@dell.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2CFC588D-558C-42F0-B7F1-BE6D68E9BA15@dell.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2010-10/txt/msg00019.txt.bz2 > Does this make sense? (In other words, would such an approach be > welcomed?) I think we talked about this a few weeks back. The answer is a definite yes. What we should do, IMO, is have GDB depend on the gdbserver code. That way, we can think of implementing a gdbserver as the first step towards implementing a native GDB (or seen differently, if you have implemented a native GDB, then you should have a gdbserver for free). I think that Pedro also mentioned that the GNU/Linux nat support was now better in gdbserver as well. That being said, I don't see this as an obvious task. But I would certainly welcome it. -- Joel