Mirror of the gdb mailing list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Quality Quorum <qqi@world.std.com>
To: Daniel Jacobowitz <dmj+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: gdbserver: integrated vs. separated
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 16:54:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Pine.SGI.4.21.0107201954001.10510-100000@world.std.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20010720143133.A32237@nevyn.them.org>

On Fri, 20 Jul 2001, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:

> Before I invest any more time in patching gdbserver, I think I need to
> know which way to take it: towards GDB or away from.
> 
> Andrew Cagney wrote, in a message not long ago:
>  > I think, in terms of better splitting up gdbserver and gdb it is pretty
>  > much a requirement.  I can but dream of the day when GDBSERVER stops
>  > including defs.h :-)
> 
> 
> Well, I can't dream of it - I can see it.  KERNEL_U_ADDR, a few
> *_REGNUM variables, REGISTER_BYTES/REGISTER_RAW_SIZE/REGISTER_BYTE, and
> some prototypes are all it's currently getting from defs.h.  I've
> removed the include entirely in my local sources.  It'll take some
> weeding to make all the gdbserver ports (or at least most of them)
> compile in this situation, but it can be done.  Right now I still get
> CORE_ADDR by including "bfd.h", but I can probably make that go away
> too.
> 
> The question is, should I do all this, or should we go the other way? 
> I think splitting is the only reasonable answer, and I think that it
> will simplify gdbserver substantially in addition to forcing me to
> improve documentation of the remote protocol.
> 
> If the world agrees with me, I'll do the cleanup necessary and work out
> a postable solution.  My extreme temptation is to move gdbserver to a
> separate top-level directory; then we can enforce independence from
> gdb's private headers, and perhaps put things like the target_signal
> enum and definitions of remote protocol register packets in include/
> (or include/gdb/?).

I suppose it is a right thing to do.

> 
> I'm probably going to break a couple of gdbserver targets in the
> process, for lack of testing ability; I can't find a lot of these
> systems to test on.  I have my doubts about when they last built,
> though, so it doesn't make me weep.
> 
> -- 
> Daniel Jacobowitz                           Carnegie Mellon University
> MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer
> 

Thanks,

Aleksey



  parent reply	other threads:[~2001-07-20 16:54 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2001-07-20 14:31 Daniel Jacobowitz
2001-07-20 15:00 ` Kevin Buettner
2001-07-20 16:54 ` Quality Quorum [this message]
2001-07-20 18:47 ` Fabrice Gautier

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=Pine.SGI.4.21.0107201954001.10510-100000@world.std.com \
    --to=qqi@world.std.com \
    --cc=dmj+@andrew.cmu.edu \
    --cc=gdb@sources.redhat.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox