As Rick Mann wrote: > Alas, digging into gdb's code is not my idea of fun. But, working on > a nice Mac-native app appeals to me much more :-)
Well, it's a good idea to separate the machine-oriented backend (like the GDB) from the "cool" frontend anyway, rather than trying to invent a large and unmaintainable monolith. > In that case, I'd like to know if I should learn and support DWARF-2 > or STABS. Is one better than the other? Faster to load/query, etc? DWARF-2 is a standard, but a relatively young one. You might find some documents about it, its design is certainly not bad, but not everything might actually be implemented the way these documents say. Many things are still in flux, the more for a non-mainstream target like the AVR, where currently practically the only known generator of DWARF-2 is GCC, and the only known consumer is AVR Studio. OTOH, stabs is a de-facto standard that simply "evolved". The GNU binutils folks have to be thanked for doing the tedious work of actually documenting stabs with all its facettes. It's a well-established system that has been in use for more than 20 years now, and as such, it's fairly stable. Being a pragmatic approach, it might even be less complex than DWARF-2. -- cheers, J"org .-.-. --... ...-- -.. . DL8DTL http://www.sax.de/~joerg/ NIC: JW11-RIPE Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-) _______________________________________________ AVR-chat mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/avr-chat
