Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
[cdt-dev] Re: [dsdp-tm-dev] Moving the RSE "Remote CDT Launch" feature into CDT

Hmm.... Yeah... then CDT would have to go from a +1 Galileo project to a +3? Unless TM decided to move up to +1?

Sounds messy, at least for right now.

Chris Recoskie
Team Lead, IBM CDT and RDT
IBM Toronto
Inactive hide details for Pawel Piech <pawel.piech@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>Pawel Piech <pawel.piech@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

          Pawel Piech <pawel.piech@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
          Sent by: dsdp-tm-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

          03/04/2009 04:05 PM

          Please respond to
          Target Management developer discussions <dsdp-tm-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>


Target Management developer discussions <dsdp-tm-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "CDT General developers list." <cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>



Re: [dsdp-tm-dev] Moving the RSE "Remote CDT Launch" feature into CDT

I like the idea of having the RSE-based remote launch in CDT, but it would introduce a dependency from CDT on the Target Management project, which would have implications on the CDT build.

Oberhuber, Martin wrote:
      Hi all,

      As some of you may know, one part of the TM / RSE offering is a "Remote CDT" Launch configuration, which allows
        • Uploading files through RSE-provided Services
        • Launching the program remotely through an RSE-provided shell
        • Debugging remotely through a remote gdbserver instance (requires local cross-gdb).
      The implementation of this feature requires using CDT internal non-API [1] in order to get the debugger configuration page into the launch config UI, which is forbidden in Galileo.

      We'd therefore think it makes sense to move the feature into the CDT [2] -- on the RSE side, only public API is being used. In other words, we propose adding a new optional CDT feature "Remote Launch" which depends on the RSE, and removing that feature from the RSE offering.

      The feature itself doesn't expose any API (everything is "internal"), so renaming the plugin and/or the package should not be an issue if that is desired.

      Does the CDT Community agree that this is a good thing to do?
      Who is the right person to get in touch with for making it happen?
      Is it realistic to get that done for M6?


      Martin Oberhuber, Senior Member of Technical Staff, Wind River
      Target Management Project Lead, DSDP PMC Member

      dsdp-tm-dev mailing list
dsdp-tm-dev mailing list

GIF image

GIF image

GIF image

Back to the top