GDB/MI questions

Bob Rossi bob@brasko.net
Thu Jan 19 16:03:00 GMT 2017


On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 10:47:21AM -0500, Simon Marchi wrote:
> On 2017-01-19 10:11, Bob Rossi wrote:
> >I'm just trying to provide the same functionality I did when I was using
> >annotations. This was one of the noted differences.
> >
> >Since the MI differs in this area, I've done as you suggested and
> >that works well. I guess I'll see if there are any downsides here.
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Bob Rossi
> 
> From experience (I'd like to be proven wrong), it will be very difficult to
> accurately re-create the gdb console "experience" when using MI.  The
> commands that should or should not repeat is just one example.  Consider
> history, tab completion, readline bindings (e.g. ctrl-R), pagination, etc.
> How does that work with the MI version of cgdb?

CGDB links to readline so the interaction is all very similar.

> If I understand correctly how annotations work, when the user types, they
> are interacting directly with gdb.  So when they press tab to get a
> completion, it's handled by gdb.  With MI, the user interacts with the
> front-end, which in turns talk to gdb.  So the front-end would have to
> re-implement all those features.

Yes, CGDB has supported tab completion for a long time.

> This is why gdb has this "new-ui" command that Pedro mentioned.  Instead of
> trying to emulate a gdb console, the front-end can start GDB in standard
> console mode (redirecting its i/o to an embedded terminal emulator) and open
> a channel on the side with new-ui for MI commands.  This way, when using the
> console, the user interacts directly with gdb, and gets the real console
> experience.

I might give that a try. However, since CGDB already has great terminal
emulation, it's not a huge deal. The other downside is, CGDB works with
lots of GDB's. Using this feature leaves behind many GDBs. Or I'd have
to support two modes. Yuck.

Thanks,
Bob Rossi



More information about the Gdb mailing list