[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [cdt-dev] Question on future debugger interface
- From: "Marc Khouzam" <marc.khouzam@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 10:12:38 -0400
- Delivered-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Thread-index: AcjjXlSoI+XfKJl/SqS2M682KvEJswAABvRg
- Thread-topic: [cdt-dev] Question on future debugger interface
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.
P.S. Added the DD (DSF) list in CC.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> 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
> interface with the CDT and why. Which way would make it the
> easiest for
> developers to use?
> Thank you in advance for your time.
> cdt-dev mailing list