Re: GDB code reuse for gdbserver?

[Paul Koning <paul_koning@dell.com>]

On Oct 7, 2010, at 2:50 PM, Michael Snyder wrote:

> 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).

Interesting.  I had thought of it as the other way around, mostly because gdb is far more complete than gdbserver.

>> I think that Pedro also mentioned that the GNU/Linux nat support was now
>> better in gdbserver as well.

I didn't realize that...

>> That being said, I don't see this as an obvious task. But I would
>> certainly welcome it.
> 
> 
> Topic for the BoF?

Unfortunately I can't be there.

My reason for poking at this is (for the moment) NetBSD, which isn't supported at all in gdbserver.  There are bits in the NetBSD stream but those are not complete (thread support is an issue).  And while I could do it the existing way, i.e., do the work twice, it seemed to make sense to do it once and cover both use cases.

> 
> My sketchy memory suggests that there is an issue with licensing.
> Is not gdbserver somehow less restrictively licensed than gdb?

It doesn't look that way; both have GPL 3 on them in the current rev.

	paul