cgdb-users

[Cgdb-users] cgdb & automake

[Bob R. <bob...@co...>]

Hi,

I re-organized the make system for cgdb/tgdb.

The new way creates many libraries instead of only one monolithic libtgdb.a

This is good because:
1. It physically separates the code into directories.
2. Makes code easier to find and understand
3. It forces units to only rely on lower units

Its bad because:
1. The user that wants to link to libtgdb has to link to its dependents
   The current list is already 5 libraries.=20
   ( -lutil -ladt -lannotate-two -lgdbmi -ltgdb )
2. It slows down ./configure;make;make install

What does everyone think?

I strongly like the new system. I personally don't care how long it takes to
compile. The only thing that really bothers me is all of the libraries
the client has to link against.

Thanks,
Bob Rossi

Re: [Cgdb-users] cgdb & automake

[Peter K. <pe...@ko...>]

I think that's fine.  If, in the future, you wanted to export a single
library, you could always generate one out of the sublibraries.

One of these days I'm seriouly going to finish up that config stuff.
How do the key bindings work right now?  I'm thinking about adding a
'bind' when I create the config file parser.

Peter

On Fri, Apr 25, 2003 at 08:30:28PM -0400, Bob Rossi wrote:
> Hi,
>=20
> I re-organized the make system for cgdb/tgdb.
>=20
> The new way creates many libraries instead of only one monolithic libtgdb=
.a
>=20
> This is good because:
> 1. It physically separates the code into directories.
> 2. Makes code easier to find and understand
> 3. It forces units to only rely on lower units
>=20
> Its bad because:
> 1. The user that wants to link to libtgdb has to link to its dependents
>    The current list is already 5 libraries.=20
>    ( -lutil -ladt -lannotate-two -lgdbmi -ltgdb )
> 2. It slows down ./configure;make;make install
>=20
> What does everyone think?

--=20
Peter D. Kovacs <pe...@ko...>

Re: [Cgdb-users] cgdb & automake

[Bob R. <bob...@co...>]

On Sat, Apr 26, 2003 at 04:43:01PM -0400, Peter Kovacs wrote:
> I think that's fine.  If, in the future, you wanted to export a single
> library, you could always generate one out of the sublibraries.
>=20
> One of these days I'm seriouly going to finish up that config stuff.
> How do the key bindings work right now?  I'm thinking about adding a
> 'bind' when I create the config file parser.

As of now, libinput receives all input from the tty.
It translates the escape sequences into the keys they represent.

All libinput returns is a regular key or a macro ( CGDB_KEY_UP ).

cgdb uses libinput to get keys. It has hard-coded into it things like

key =3D input_getch();

if ( key =3D=3D CGDB_KEY_UP )
   ...

So, I can imagine that your code will be between libinput and cgdb.

Bobby

>=20
> Peter
>=20
> On Fri, Apr 25, 2003 at 08:30:28PM -0400, Bob Rossi wrote:
> > Hi,
> >=20
> > I re-organized the make system for cgdb/tgdb.
> >=20
> > The new way creates many libraries instead of only one monolithic libtg=
db.a
> >=20
> > This is good because:
> > 1. It physically separates the code into directories.
> > 2. Makes code easier to find and understand
> > 3. It forces units to only rely on lower units
> >=20
> > Its bad because:
> > 1. The user that wants to link to libtgdb has to link to its dependents
> >    The current list is already 5 libraries.=20
> >    ( -lutil -ladt -lannotate-two -lgdbmi -ltgdb )
> > 2. It slows down ./configure;make;make install
> >=20
> > What does everyone think?
>=20
> --=20
> Peter D. Kovacs <pe...@ko...>