From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18538 invoked by alias); 1 Feb 2002 03:44:11 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 18394 invoked from network); 1 Feb 2002 03:44:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO TheWorld.com) (199.172.62.106) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 1 Feb 2002 03:44:05 -0000 Received: from shell.TheWorld.com (rushanan@shell01.TheWorld.com [199.172.62.241]) by TheWorld.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA31526; Thu, 31 Jan 2002 22:44:05 -0500 Received: from localhost (qqi@localhost) by shell.TheWorld.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA10649065; Thu, 31 Jan 2002 22:44:04 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shell01.TheWorld.com: qqi owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 19:44:00 -0000 From: Quality Quorum To: Andrew Cagney cc: Daniel Jacobowitz , Michael Snyder , "Sarnath K - CTD, Chennai." , Subject: Re: Thread Support for remote debugging In-Reply-To: <3C5A0B8B.7080504@cygnus.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-SW-Source: 2002-01/txt/msg00390.txt.bz2 On Thu, 31 Jan 2002, Andrew Cagney wrote: > > >> No, he means "knowing whether GDB and GDB Server support doing remote > >> debugging at all", as far as I can tell. > >> > >> We've covered this ground a couple times lately :) Someone promised to > >> contribute thread support and dropped off the face of the earth. It's > >> on my TODO list, but I don't anticipate getting to it any time soon. > >> Etc. > > > (I recall the discussion, from memory one of the problems was the paper > trail). Daniel, you might consider doing what I do with my TODO list - > just shove it all into GDB's bug database as change-requests :-) > > > > If you are talking about me, I had it done more than one year ago: > > http://world.std.com/~qqi, see section about gdb. > > > Daniel isn't. > > > > The problem is that (1) redhat never said 'yes we want it' so it is > > sitll based on 4.18, (2) there are a few issues which could be > > resolved one way or anotehr an readhat never said 'we want it this way'. > > > (GDB is owned by the FSF (not Red Hat) and it is assumed that GDB > developers put the FSF's interests before their own.) > > GDB currently comes with: > > gdb/*-stub.c: > These are primative stubs that can be run on embedded boards. > They appear to be public domain. > > gdb/gdbserver: > This lets you debug a native UNIX program on a remote machine. > It is GPLed. It is owned by the FSF. > Within the embedded community I suspect it is a hot product > since it lets the developer debug a UNIX application > running on the embedded machine remotely. > > My understanding of rproxy was that it could be linked with third party > libraries and provide a remote protocol interface to JTAG devices and > the like. I wasn't aware that it could be used to do remote debugging > of native applications. > > As for making rproxy part of GDB, I'm certainly interested (I didn't > know you were looking to do this). Since gdbserver is both owned by the > FSF and is GPL, I would need to ensure that its replacement is no less > ``free''. Would you be willing to contribute rproxy to the FSF? > I was not talking about rproxy (BTW, it does not support threads), I have replacement for remote.c and reference stub supporting threads on RTEMS. > Andrew > Thanks, Aleksey