From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9725 invoked by alias); 7 Oct 2010 18:58:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 9716 invoked by uid 22791); 7 Oct 2010 18:58:20 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from ausc60pc101.us.dell.com (HELO ausc60pc101.us.dell.com) (143.166.85.206) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 07 Oct 2010 18:58:15 +0000 X-Loopcount0: from 10.152.240.141 Subject: Re: GDB code reuse for gdbserver? Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Paul Koning In-Reply-To: <4CAE1687.6040008@vmware.com> Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2010 18:58:00 -0000 Cc: Joel Brobecker , gdb@sourceware.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <9FA13E39-CC58-4BF7-ABC3-EBC473D4DADD@dell.com> References: <2CFC588D-558C-42F0-B7F1-BE6D68E9BA15@dell.com> <20101007184722.GG2813@adacore.com> <4CAE1687.6040008@vmware.com> To: Michael Snyder 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/msg00021.txt.bz2 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 g= db 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. >=20 >=20 > Topic for the BoF? Unfortunately I can't be there. My reason for poking at this is (for the moment) NetBSD, which isn't suppor= ted 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 ex= isting way, i.e., do the work twice, it seemed to make sense to do it once = and cover both use cases. >=20 > 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