Re: How about remote MI?

[Bob Rossi <bob_rossi at cox dot net>]

On Sun, Jul 16, 2006 at 08:57:20PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 15, 2006 at 09:50:54PM +0800, teawater wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > 
> > In May, I release GDBRUI(http://sourceforge.net/projects/gdbrui/) that
> > is an interpreter to make GDB can be controlled by the other programe
> > through TCP. But some people ask me why not extend MI to support TCP.
> > Now, I think this idea is cool. Does GDB MI support TCP? Maybe I can
> > extend MI to support TCP. How do you think about it?
> 
> I do not see the point.  GDB/MI talks to a terminal or a pipe.  If you
> want to connect that pipe to a TCP socket, GDB doesn't need to know
> that it's a socket.
> 
> You can use netcat to connect an arbitrary process to a bidirectional TCP
> socket.  There's a bunch of other similar tools, too.

There ia at least one possibility I can think of that would improve 
upon GDB/MI by having it connect back to the FE via a TCP socket.

That is, it would avoid the 'tty' issue, by allowing the FE to put a
single pty between the FE and GDB, and having all the MI protocol 
on a totally separate channel.

Bob Rossi