From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Quality Quorum To: Andrew Cagney Cc: GDB Discussion Subject: Re: Where is GDB going Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 14:21:00 -0000 Message-id: References: <3A96DB35.69A12FC8@cygnus.com> X-SW-Source: 2001-02/msg00331.html On Fri, 23 Feb 2001, Andrew Cagney wrote: > Just FYI, > > I'm currently aware of three significant and ongoing architectural > developments in GDB (I use the word `ongoing' loosely as like any work > it suffer from fits and starts): > > o mi/libgdb/cli > > An interface for building better > and more robust GUIs. If is signficant > as it involves separating the CLI > from the core of GDB. > > o multi-arch > > Allowing GDB to debug more complex > targets containing several architectures > > o async/event-loop > > Eliminating the assumption that > the world stops when the target > > Beyond that I also know of some more localized development (C++ > cleanup/revamp, harvard/segment architecture discussion, ...). I am playing with (1) the idea of rewriting it in C++, the thing got grown complex enough to justify these efforts (I suppose it may provide a good pay off into multi-arch) and (2) with the idea of separating native and cross-debugging in the process, while preserving the common interface and structure. However, I had a short but unpleasant private discussion with RMS about GPL 3.0 from which I concluded (1) that it may preclude proprietary software debugging with future versions of GDB by closing protocol linking loophole in GPL 2.0, (2) that it will be for sure impossible (and it is may be illegal right now) to link gdb with proprietary software driving various hardware probes. So, I am staying quite discuraged from working in this area at all. > > Andrew > Thanks, Aleksey