On Sat, Jul 19, 2003 at 11:38:12AM +1000, Keith Owens wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 20:09:41 -0500,
> linas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 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
|