From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1780 invoked by alias); 16 Jan 2007 00:38:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 1772 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Jan 2007 00:38:51 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.zeugmasystems.com (HELO zeugmasystems.com) (192.139.122.66) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 16 Jan 2007 00:38:46 +0000 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: GDB and scripting languages - which Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 00:38:00 -0000 Message-ID: <66910A579C9312469A7DF9ADB54A8B7D5811C9@exchange.ZeugmaSystems.local> From: "Kaz Kylheku" To: "Eli Zaretskii" Cc: , 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: 2007-01/txt/msg00252.txt.bz2 Eli Zaretskii: > Aren't we talking about a scripting language to allow decent scripting > _inside_ GDB, i.e. about extension _to_ GDB, as opposed to making GDB > an extension of other programs? I don't see a significant difference between these situations. I'm only thinking about a process image, in which I simultaneously have GDB and the run-time of some programming language. Who gets the main entry point when that image is started is largely irrelevant. If GDB is packaged in such a way that it can be used as a component in other programs, the behavior of an extended GDB can be easily achieved. Simply link GDB to a small driver program which passes control back to GDB. that small driver program also attaches to the programming language run-time of choice, initializes it, and registers some hooks in GDB to be able to use it. > > Guile is not even particularly attractive people who are=20 > already Scheme > > programmers. For serious Scheme work, there are better=20 > implementations > > out there.=20 >=20 > Aren't we talking about a language for extending GDB, as opposed to a > language ``for serious Scheme work''? Extending GDB could be serious work, and if that work is done in Scheme, then it is serious Scheme work.