[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
RE: [cdt-dev] Question on future debugger interface

Hi,

The new DSF-based debugging frontend that can also be used with the CDT
also has an MI layer.  If Frysk was to use the MI protocol, I think its
usage would be easier to implement for DSF.

Also, GDB is evolving the MI interface for such things as non-stop
debugging and multi-process debugging.  So, MI has some effort being
put into it.  I believe an API library would need to be defined from the
start, which seems to be more work, for Frysk and for DSF.

So, I think from an "amount of work" point-of-view, using MI is better.
>From a "best technical solution" point-of-view, I don't have enough
experience to have an opinion.

Marc

P.S. Added the DD (DSF) list in CC.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]On
> Behalf Of Rick Moseley
> Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 9:59 AM
> To: cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [cdt-dev] Question on future debugger interface
> 
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> The open source Frysk debugger development 
> team(http://sourceware.org/frysk) is currently debating how best to 
> integrate with the Eclipse CDT plugin.  We have been 
> discussing the pros 
> and cons of the two different ways to interface: 1) have an 
> API library 
> such as libfrysk or 2) use the current wire protocol used by 
> gdb/mi that 
> is currently in use in the CDT. 
> 
> The Frysk team would very much appreciate the opinion(s) of the CDT 
> developers as regards to which way they would prefer to see a 
> debugger 
> interface with the CDT and why. Which way would make it the 
> easiest for 
> developers to use?  
> 
> Thank you in advance for your time.
> 
> Rick
> _______________________________________________
> cdt-dev mailing list
> cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev
>