From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6288 invoked by alias); 7 Oct 2010 18:50:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 6275 invoked by uid 22791); 7 Oct 2010 18:50:55 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp-outbound-1.vmware.com (HELO smtp-outbound-1.vmware.com) (65.115.85.69) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 07 Oct 2010 18:50:51 +0000 Received: from mailhost4.vmware.com (mailhost4.vmware.com [10.16.67.124]) by smtp-outbound-1.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEC9F13072; Thu, 7 Oct 2010 11:50:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from msnyder-server.eng.vmware.com (promd-2s-dhcp138.eng.vmware.com [10.20.124.138]) by mailhost4.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3E33C9B63; Thu, 7 Oct 2010 11:50:47 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4CAE1687.6040008@vmware.com> Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2010 18:50:00 -0000 From: Michael Snyder User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (X11/20100903) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joel Brobecker CC: Paul Koning , "gdb@sourceware.org" Subject: Re: GDB code reuse for gdbserver? References: <2CFC588D-558C-42F0-B7F1-BE6D68E9BA15@dell.com> <20101007184722.GG2813@adacore.com> In-Reply-To: <20101007184722.GG2813@adacore.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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/msg00020.txt.bz2 Joel Brobecker wrote: >> 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. > Topic for the BoF? My sketchy memory suggests that there is an issue with licensing. Is not gdbserver somehow less restrictively licensed than gdb?