Re: libtgdb or libgdb

['Bob Rossi' <bob at brasko dot net>]

Well, it started out as a separate project. http://tgdb.sourceforge.net/
Then, since cgdb was the only project that used it, we put it into the
cgdb source ( It is completely modular ). http://cgdb.sourceforge.net/

Depending on the demand for such a library, it might end up back at 
tgdb.sourceforge.net ... or wherever suggestions take it. If there is
no interest for such a library, then it may stay with cgdb.

I am currently talking to the author of ctrlgdb about integrating our
efforts with tgdb. I really believe there is a need for such a library.

To be honest, the interface isn't professional grade yet. However, up
till now, it does everything I need it to.

I am really wondering what most of the gdb developers think.

Bob Rossi

On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 07:27:21AM -0400, Hassan Aurag wrote:
> I'd actually love that. It is indeed a real pain to find anything that
> presents the developer with a nice interface to debugging symbols.
> 
> Where can it be downloaded?
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bob Rossi [mailto:bob@brasko.net]
> Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 10:34 PM
> To: gdb@sources.redhat.com
> Subject: libtgdb or libgdb
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> As some of you may know, I am working on a front end to gdb called cgdb.
> In order to communicate with gdb, I wrote a library called libtgdb (
> Trivial gdb ). This gives a simple interface for the front end to work
> with. Thus, completely separating the gdb-specific code from the front
> end.
> 
> As of know, libtgdb supports annotate level 2 communication. Starting
> next month, I plan to add mi support. It can end up supporting annotate
> level 1 if necessary in the future.
> 
> Since I have been subscribed to the gdb list, I have seen many inquiries 
> about libgdb. Which seems to be no longer supported. I was thinking that
> it might be reasonable to have libtgdb be shipped with gdb's sources as
> a library that any front end can use to interface with gdb. Of course it
> would be as general purpose as possible, and capable of supporting all
> of gdb's features when complete.
> 
> One major difference between libtgdb and libgdb is that
>    1. libtgdb is a separate library, not linked against gdb's sources.
>    2. libtgdb does not have to be compiled to work with a single gdb, 
>    it is backwards compatible and will work with any gdb.
> 
> What does everyone think? Does this make any sense? Is this too ambitious?
> 
> My main goal, is too make front end's able to integrate with gdb easily.
> I have spent *far* to much time trying to figure out the gdb specific
> stuff. It just doesn't make sense reproducing the code in all of the
> front ends. They all end up having there own bugs, which is *very* annoying.
> In general, the quality of front ends could be improved, if developers
> were not trying to figure out the tricks of getting gdb to do certain
> things.
> 
> Thanks,
> Bob Rossi
> 
>