Re: GDB interface: MI versus API or ??

[Phil Muldoon <pmuldoon at redhat dot com>]

Rick Moseley wrote:

Hi rick. Interesting reponses.
> Marc Khouzam:
>
> "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.

Why not implement a Frysk "module/plug-in/back-end/whatever" for DSF? If 
CDT implements the debugger via DSF, it should not matter then?

> 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.

Cite ;)

> From these responses it seems the MI is alive and well inside the 
> Eclipse CDT.  Although it would seem to me the API approach would be 
> more robust/full-featured, there does not seem to be any 
> qualms/objections to using the MI protocol.  If there are new features 
> being made to MI in the gdb community it might be the way to go if it 
> indeed fleshes out the functionality.  We could implement the gdb MI 
> protocol and then add "Frysk extensions" to get the additional 
> functionality we require.

It sure is, but what else is there, out-there now to compare it too?  
I'm not against MI, or GDB (and am playing a large degree of devil's 
advocate here), but if you ask the a bunch of MI hackers what's best 
since sliced bread ....

But a very interesting set of responses. The data is good, lets hope 
there is more of it!


Regards

Phil