RE: [cdt-dev] About default debuggers, etc
I agree. It would be nice if gdbserver talked TCF but I just don't
see the incentive. GDB has been around much longer than TCF and is
pervasive in both the desktop and embedded OS world. More likely is
the use of TCF agents that act as a bridge to the gdb world, as per
what Nokia contributed for Linux.
At 09:55 AM 2/5/2010, Dominique Toupin wrote:
We are also interested in TCF, actually we did a few improvements
that are now merged in the TCF repository (thanks to Michael
- TCF binary transfer;
- allow TCF services to be distributed outside of the TCF source tree;
Those TCF additions allowed us to created a Linux tracing TCF agent,
you can find a high level view at
Regarding debug it would be nice to have gdbserver/GDB talk TCF,
Ericsson alone might have a hard time convincing the GDB community
but if we are a few we could come up we a good plan, if other are
interested please let me know.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John Cortell
> Sent: 4-Feb-10 20:57
> To: CDT General developers list.; CDT General developers list.
> Subject: Re: [cdt-dev] About default debuggers, etc
> At 07:49 PM 2/4/2010, Doug Schaefer wrote:
> >I'd really like the Nokia gang to state what they think the strategy
> >for EDC should be, or what they are intending it for since they are
> >investing pretty heavily in it. The one thing I think is
> firm is that
> >it helps those who need to avoid GPL, and there is
> commercial need for
> >that from some vendors. As I also mentioned, I'm curious whether it
> >would make implementing a JNI debug story more easily as we
> have full
> >control over what it's doing.
> Doug, EDC provides a DSF-based solution for TCF agents. The
> hope is that TCF will end up being adopted widely as a
> "standard" run-control API, allowing for easier integration
> between silicon and tools vendors. Freescale is very
> interested in this technology.
> cdt-dev mailing list
cdt-dev mailing list