ddbg_gdb with emacs

[Jascha Wetzel]

if it's just for these few changes - they will be in the next release.
if i'll have to put a larger amount of work into the CLI issue, i'd
really prefer implementing GDB/MI. besides the fact that something like
GDB/MI is the most reasonable way to solve the problem, eclipse/cdt
supports it as well.

Bill Baxter wrote:
> Bill Baxter wrote:
>> Jascha Wetzel wrote:
>>> ah, ic!
>>> the missing filename isn't an output format issue. C::B requires the
>>> full pathname, so i try to find it using the source search paths that
>>> have been set with the "directory" command. if ddbg can't find the
>>> absolute path, it doesn't output any filename - that's going to be fixed
>>> in the next release.
>>>
>>> hm, all these different GDB output formats are pretty annoying. any
>>> chance to make emacs work with GDB/MI (Machine Interface)?
>>
>>  From gdb-ui.el:
>>
>> ;; GDB developers plan to make the annotation interface obsolete.  A new
>> ;; interface called GDB/MI (machine interface) has been designed to
>> replace
>> ;; it.  Some GDB/MI commands are used in this file through the CLI
>> command
>> ;; 'interpreter mi <mi-command>'.  A file called gdb-mi.el is included
>> with
>> ;; GDB (6.2 onwards) that uses GDB/MI as the primary interface to GDB.
>> It is
>> ;; still under development and is part of a process to migrate Emacs from
>> ;; annotations to GDB/MI.
>>
>> But my emacs (GNU Emacs 22.0.93.1) doesn't have such a thing, and
>> MinGW's gdb (that I just downloaded) says it's version 5.2.1.
>>
>> However, making it work sounds like it may be as easy as downloading
>> the gdb-mi.el file and throwing it in one's site-lisp directory.
>>     http://tinyurl.com/yo2bq8
>> The comment in that file says it will work with emacs 22.x.
>>
>> --bb
> 
> 
> There is a gdb 6.x snapshot available for download on MinGW's site.
> I tried that with the above gdb-mi.el.
> It works, but not as well currently as --annotate=3 mode.
> The indicators for breakpoints and current line don't show up for some
> reason, though I can't tell why.  It looks like it's supposed to work,
> judging from the comments in the code.
> 
> --bb