GDB/MI (Was: Embedded development)
kuba at mareimbrium.org
Tue Sep 13 14:19:07 UTC 2005
On Tuesday 13 September 2005 04:50, Vladimir Prus wrote:
> Hi Roberto,
> > In KDevelop4 I would like to split the GUI from the GDB-support. The idea
> > is to reuse the GUI to integrate different debuggers. As I said before I
> > want to avoid code duplication and cut&paste int KDevelop4.
> Yes, me too. But in fact, the only code duplication we have is with Ruby,
> and it will be hard to merge both debuggers. And I'm still sceptical of the
> idea that we can implement, say, Python debugger, using the same interface.
> It should be also noted that current debugger code has some attempt at
> separating debugger backend -- there's abstract class DBGController that's
> supposed to encapsulate all debugger operations. But at the moment,
> GDBController is the only implementation. Do you have some specific
> "different debuggers" in mind?
> > About the GDB-support. I know GDB/MI is incomplete and we need to mix
> > GDB/shell commands and GDB/MI commands, but to me it sounds like the
> > _right_ (tm) tecnology to use. What do you think about GDB/MI and
> > integrate it in KDevelop?
> I did comment on that in my reply to Alexander Dymo recently. The current
> state of MI is not very promising. On the other hand, it offers some
> advantages, like proper error reporting (In TUI, error messages go to
> stderr, so it's not easy to understand which command which error message
> relates to).
Well, from reading the documentation (by Stallman, Pesch, Shebs, et al.) at
least it would seem that MI protocol provides clean error reporting even for
Wouldn't that be useful in itself?
More information about the KDevelop-devel