Re: GDB/MI questions

[Bob Rossi <bob@brasko.net>]

On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 10:47:21AM -0500, Simon Marchi wrote:
> On 2017-01-19 10:11, Bob Rossi wrote:
> >I'm just trying to provide the same functionality I did when I was using
> >annotations. This was one of the noted differences.
> >
> >Since the MI differs in this area, I've done as you suggested and
> >that works well. I guess I'll see if there are any downsides here.
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Bob Rossi
> 
> From experience (I'd like to be proven wrong), it will be very difficult to
> accurately re-create the gdb console "experience" when using MI.  The
> commands that should or should not repeat is just one example.  Consider
> history, tab completion, readline bindings (e.g. ctrl-R), pagination, etc.
> How does that work with the MI version of cgdb?

CGDB links to readline so the interaction is all very similar.

> If I understand correctly how annotations work, when the user types, they
> are interacting directly with gdb.  So when they press tab to get a
> completion, it's handled by gdb.  With MI, the user interacts with the
> front-end, which in turns talk to gdb.  So the front-end would have to
> re-implement all those features.

Yes, CGDB has supported tab completion for a long time.

> This is why gdb has this "new-ui" command that Pedro mentioned.  Instead of
> trying to emulate a gdb console, the front-end can start GDB in standard
> console mode (redirecting its i/o to an embedded terminal emulator) and open
> a channel on the side with new-ui for MI commands.  This way, when using the
> console, the user interacts directly with gdb, and gets the real console
> experience.

I might give that a try. However, since CGDB already has great terminal
emulation, it's not a huge deal. The other downside is, CGDB works with
lots of GDB's. Using this feature leaves behind many GDBs. Or I'd have
to support two modes. Yuck.

Thanks,
Bob Rossi