On Sat, 29 Jul 2017 21:59:03 +0200, ylluminate via lldb-dev wrote: > And one thread seems to indicate that if if we could "convince LLDB > developers to provide
> a decent implementation of the GDB/MI protocol, That is an oxymoron. MI protocol was designed to minimize the amount of data transferred between gdb/lldb and a front end. But this communication isn't anything expensive as the debugger always runs on the same host as the frontend anyway (gdb/lldb<->gdbserver link is for remote debugging). Unfortunately complexity of the GDB/MI protocol from this misoptimization leads to many bugs on both sides of the implementation, for GDB: https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/buglist.cgi?bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=SUSPENDED&bug_status=WAITING&bug_status=REOPENED&component=mi&list_id=37310&product=gdb&query_format=advanced 101 bugs found. The MI protocol in use does not conform to its spec as there is a bug-to-bug compatibility instead such as: https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2008-11/msg00275.html There still also isn't any reasonable MI library to be used by a front end. I find the LLDB API to be a better choice to be used by the frontend/emacs (I have only little but great experience with the LLDB API). Jan _______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev