Skip to main content

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

One more time.  Looks like I have to subscribe to the dev list before I can send to it...

Pawel Piech wrote:
Currently, the TCF protocol, agent, and UI integration are still in pre-1.0 stage.  However according to the TM project plan, bringing TCF to 1.0 release is one of the release themes. 
For my part, I would love to see the UI-integration of TCF, which is based on DSF find its way into the CDT project along with DSF so that we can all coordinate their development better, and hopefully find some more contributors in the CDT community :-)

P.S. I am also cc'ing the TM dev list for their comments.

normankyee wrote:
I'm in the same situation as the Frysk team.  I have a C/C++ debugger library
that I would like to integrate into Eclipse CDT.  I've been looking at TCF
which has been recommended on this thread.  The TCF reference implementation
is missing features like source-level debugging, disassembly, and memory
views.  Did you add those features yourself?  Anyone know if there are any
plans to add those features to the reference implementation and if there is
a roadmap for it?  Thanks!

- Norm 

Ken Ryall-2 wrote:

We have been looking at some similar issues with debugger integration and
I'd like to second Pawel's suggest to look at TCF. If you have any
I'd be happy to share our experiences.

- Ken

From: ext Pawel Piech <pawel.piech@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: "CDT General developers list." <cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 10:46:24 -0700
To: "CDT General developers list." <cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [cdt-dev] Question on future debugger interface

Hi Rick,
You may also want to consider the TCF debugger protocol currently being
developed in the Target Management project (see  It already has a reference
agent implementation (in C) that you could re-use, which would save you
the headache of implementing the MI protocol layer from scratch.
Also, as Marc pointed out GDB/MI protocol is evolving quite a lot to
support new features and keeping up with its changes will likely require
considerable effort.  This shouldn't be a big surprise, as from my past
discussions with GDB developers I got the impression that GDB/MI as a
standard protocol to be implemented by other debuggers is definitely not
on their agenda. 

cdt-dev mailing list


Back to the top