This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: errors in GDB reading symbols
- From: marcov at stack dot nl (Marco van de Voort)
- To: tromey at redhat dot com
- Cc: gdb at sourceware dot org
- Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 22:47:53 +0200 (CEST)
- Subject: Re: errors in GDB reading symbols
> It is definitely still very much used in the Dos/go32v2 and Win32 versino of
> the IDE. It is also used in our own builds of the Linux- version of the IDE,
> but less so in the versions packaged by distributions (mostly because of
> there being no separate working "libgdb.a" package).
> Other than the implementation cost that you noted, the main opposition to
> using MI that I've heard are
>a) as mentioned by Marco, it's probably impossible to use it on Dos (since
>there's no multitasking)
IIRC the win9x pipe situation is not very good either. Which limits you on
Windows too, if you still support win9x.
>b) communication with gdb via MI is supposedly dreadfully slow on Windows (I
>don't have Windows, so I can't confirm or deny this)
File I/O and starting binaries in particular on Windows is relatively slow,
which is why a fragmentation over multiple binaries is not desirable.
Moreover, it is simply not the culture on non-unix to do so.
Partially the earlier own debugger discussion is fueled by one of the
improvements of FPC's internal linker relative to LD, the experience that
makes the call for an own debugger so vocal. It knocks off tens of seconds
in the compile-start-with-debug cycle, and makes GDB the next bottleneck (this
is for Lazarus, not the textmode IDE)
This is also because most FPC users rate speed relative to something like
Delphi, and thus have a low tolerance for pain and slowliness. Delphi does
typically compile-start-with-debug in one second if the compile is
Personally I think the own debugger part, even IF it ever comes to fruition
is still far, far away, and for a few selected platforms only. So we still
have to live with GDB quite a while.
Forcing the MI interface would effectively kill the textmode IDE, it is
effectively in maintenance for years. If there is something to be done on
the GDB side, I'd prefer investing time in libgdb. What are the problems
with it? Does something need updating, etc?
I don't see the point of the MI interface at all btw. What is the idea
behind it? And why does it need to be one size fits all to desperately?