From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14485 invoked by alias); 5 Oct 2004 12:34:03 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 14471 invoked from network); 5 Oct 2004 12:34:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 5 Oct 2004 12:34:02 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.11/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i95CXuYW019429 for ; Tue, 5 Oct 2004 08:33:57 -0400 Received: from localhost.redhat.com (porkchop.devel.redhat.com [172.16.58.2]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i95CXmr29080; Tue, 5 Oct 2004 08:33:48 -0400 Received: from gnu.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91DF62BA0; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 16:20:53 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4161B0A5.5020502@gnu.org> Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 12:44:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-GB; rv:1.4.1) Gecko/20040831 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Brian McQueen Cc: Daniel Jacobowitz , gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Gdb with Guile References: <1096504520.17EBA60@g28.dngr.org> <20041002151402.GA24203@nevyn.them.org> In-Reply-To: <20041002151402.GA24203@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-10/txt/msg00078.txt.bz2 > On Wed, Sep 29, 2004 at 05:32:48PM -0700, Brian McQueen wrote: > >>> I was wondering if you guys had considered linking guile in with gdb to >>> provide the extension language functionality prior to going ahead with >>> MI. With Guile it is very easy to add a lightweight, yet excellent >>> extension language, and it is a complementary GNU project. I think it >>> would be a fun project. That's why I'm asking - I'd like to do it >>> myself. So I wonder if it was considered to be a bad idea. How did you >>> arrive at MI1 and MI2? Being quite familiar with Guile, I think it >>> would be a better choice. > > > MI solves a different problem than Guile would. MI is not an extension > language; it is a mechanism to interact with GDB in a machine-parseable > fashion from an external program. Actually it does, and when MI was being architected, possibilities such as GUILE were very much on the mind of the designer [i.e., me :-)] GDB is trying to head in the direction of having MI (and CLI) to be implemented as thin vineers over a libgdb object and set of primatives. Scripting languages, such as GUILE, would either use the MI interface (as gdb/mi/gdb-mi.el does), or the primatives just below. Pieces are slowly falling into place - observers, ui-out builder - but others such as async targets are still a problem. Just beware of the now very defunct libgdb v1 that was removed some time ago. The old paper http://www.gnu.org/software/gdb/papers/libgdb2/ also contains additional background. We've just a small matter of programming :-^. Andrew