[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [cdt-dev] Question on future debugger interface
- From: "Mikhail Khodjaiants" <Mikhail.Khodjaiants@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 16:00:45 +0100
- Delivered-to: email@example.com
- Thread-index: AcjjXlZA9F8nHYxtRjSi182OYRXMFgAA385Q
- Thread-topic: [cdt-dev] Question on future debugger interface
MI is definitely the easiest way to integrate a debugger into CDT. If
implemented it will be automatically picked up by existing CDI and DSF
But if the API library provides more functionality than MI it might be
worth to consider a direct integration using one of the existing
frameworks. But it would require a lot of work and resources.
From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Rick Moseley
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 2:59 PM
Subject: [cdt-dev] Question on future debugger interface
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.
cdt-dev mailing list
IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.