On Sat, Jul 19, 2003 at 11:38:12AM +1000, Keith Owens wrote: > On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 20:09:41 -0500, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >Uhh... well, kgdb does have all this stuff for crawling through stabs, > >and symbol tables and etc. So if source debug is really the requirement > >then I'd think that adding the missing features to kgdb would be the > >simpler route. Am I wrong? > > See skdb.c in an earlier post. It works (for given values of "works") > and lets you use gdb on a second machine into kdb instead of kgdb. The > biggest problem was reliably connecting to a kernel that had already > entered kdb.
Hmm. I presume some good handshaking protocol would solve the connection problem, right? What are the philosophical distinctions between kdb and kgdb? Alternately: why is it a better idea to add gdb to kdb instead of kdb features to kgdb? --linas
