This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: Questions about GDB-MI Interface
- From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>
- To: Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at cygnus dot com>
- Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at is dot elta dot co dot il>, chanskw at ca dot ibm dot com,gdb at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 14:59:37 -0400
- Subject: Re: Questions about GDB-MI Interface
- References: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1020425180255.22413F-100000@is> <3CC81583.firstname.lastname@example.org>
On Thu, Apr 25, 2002 at 10:41:07AM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> >On Thu, 25 Apr 2002, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> >>It was added with much hesitation because there was real concern that
> >>once a vaguely looking console mechanism was added, people would try to
> >>use it instead of investing the time and resources needed to address the
> >>problem of implementing a real console interface.
> >What was envisioned as a solution for the problem at hand, namely, that
> >any decent front-end to GDB must allow the user to type CLI commands?
> My best answer is that it was envisioned to be fixed in 2.0. Several
> alternatives were suggested but no decision was made. Apple has has
> since, kind of, made the decision by comming up with a working solution.
> Of the alternatives I remember:
> - properly wrap the CLI up in an
> MI command (what apple did).
> Has problems with query() where
> the CLI wants to prompt back
> to the user.
> (apple's solution)
> - separate out the CLI from GDB
> and have it as a separate MI
While it's more work, it sounds as if this is closer to the solution
the IBM people are asking for. It'd be a nice modular boundary... do
you think this is feasible?
Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer