Re: [RFC] plugin/extension interface

[Russell Shaw <rjshaw@netspace.net.au>]

Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 02, 2005 at 04:57:01PM -0800, Jim Blandy wrote:
> 
>>On 12/2/05, Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org> wrote:
>>
>>>And every one of these things you've described doing with debuggers,
>>>would require a _DIFFERENT_ plugin interface.  It would be a nightmare
>>>to add this to today's GDB!
>>
>>Oh, I figured we'd just let the plugin code #include GDB's headers
>>directly, so they could get at whatever they wanted.
>>
>>... okay, that does sound like a nightmare.
> 
> Now we're communicating :-)
> 
> For the record, here's my overall point in this thread.  We have some
> very good abstraction layers already: in particular, I'm talking about
> the remote protocol, and the MI/interpreters mechanism.  I want GDB to
> be more extensible, but I believe that those protocols are the best way
> to do it.  They both have limitations for this kind of use, because
> they aren't used that way yet; but what we need to do is commit to
> using them, then bite the bullet and begin improving them to meet our
> needs.
> 
> That way we can keep the interfaces coherent, and hopefully,
> documented at or above today's levels.

Months ago, i added a remote protocol for a hardware in-circuit emulator
and was going to write a chapter documenting how to add a target protocol
to gdb. My questions on how best to add this to gdb in cvs got no response
whatsoever. Now i've lost all interest.