RE: libtgdb or libgdb

[Hassan Aurag <aurag@cae.com>]

I'd actually love that. It is indeed a real pain to find anything that
presents the developer with a nice interface to debugging symbols.

Where can it be downloaded?


-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Rossi [mailto:bob@brasko.net]
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 10:34 PM
To: gdb@sources.redhat.com
Subject: libtgdb or libgdb


Hi,

As some of you may know, I am working on a front end to gdb called cgdb.
In order to communicate with gdb, I wrote a library called libtgdb (
Trivial gdb ). This gives a simple interface for the front end to work
with. Thus, completely separating the gdb-specific code from the front
end.

As of know, libtgdb supports annotate level 2 communication. Starting
next month, I plan to add mi support. It can end up supporting annotate
level 1 if necessary in the future.

Since I have been subscribed to the gdb list, I have seen many inquiries 
about libgdb. Which seems to be no longer supported. I was thinking that
it might be reasonable to have libtgdb be shipped with gdb's sources as
a library that any front end can use to interface with gdb. Of course it
would be as general purpose as possible, and capable of supporting all
of gdb's features when complete.

One major difference between libtgdb and libgdb is that
   1. libtgdb is a separate library, not linked against gdb's sources.
   2. libtgdb does not have to be compiled to work with a single gdb, 
   it is backwards compatible and will work with any gdb.

What does everyone think? Does this make any sense? Is this too ambitious?

My main goal, is too make front end's able to integrate with gdb easily.
I have spent *far* to much time trying to figure out the gdb specific
stuff. It just doesn't make sense reproducing the code in all of the
front ends. They all end up having there own bugs, which is *very* annoying.
In general, the quality of front ends could be improved, if developers
were not trying to figure out the tricks of getting gdb to do certain
things.

Thanks,
Bob Rossi