From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2903 invoked by alias); 7 Oct 2010 18:37:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 2857 invoked by uid 22791); 7 Oct 2010 18:37:36 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from ausxippc101.us.dell.com (HELO ausxippc101.us.dell.com) (143.166.85.207) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 07 Oct 2010 18:37:32 +0000 X-Loopcount0: from 10.152.240.141 From: Paul Koning Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: GDB code reuse for gdbserver? Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2010 18:37:00 -0000 Message-Id: <2CFC588D-558C-42F0-B7F1-BE6D68E9BA15@dell.com> To: gdb@sourceware.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081) X-IsSubscribed: yes 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/msg00018.txt.bz2 Gentlepeople, I'm wondering about a different approach to gdbserver. Right now gdbserver is a target side remote-protocol machine (server.c) plu= s a separately developed version of target debugging machinery. The latter= duplicates what's in the main gdb directory, but only for a small number o= f platforms, possibly with reduced functionality, etc. Rather than develop things twice, would it make sense to view gdbserver as = the target machinery of gdb, connected to the rest of gdb by a remote-proto= col pipe? What that would actually mean is that gdbserver/server.c would t= alk to gdb target_ops methods. So gdbserver would consist of the protocol = code specific to gdbserver, plus target code from main gdb, plus bits of in= frastructure sufficient to support the above. Does this make sense? (In other words, would such an approach be welcomed?) paul