Features vs infrastructure (was Re: Tracepoint support in Cygnus GDB ?)

[Andrew Cagney]

> Heh, I've been trolled! :-)  I must say, I've been a little envious
> watching GDB development over the past couple of years; Cygnus was never
> able to afford so many cycles spent on internals. For multi-arch alone
> it took over three years from initial proposal to the actual hacking...

Interesting view of history.

> I just thumbed through the GDB website and sources, and gdb/TODO seemed
> like it was mostly a list of desired infrastructure changes.  For instance,
> I didn't see a mention of the desirability of tracepoint support for native
> debugging, although that is an obvious item for a wishlist.  Perhaps the
> todo list should be separated into "user-visible" and "infrastructure"
> sections, with appropriate xrefs, so that everybody is aware of what's
> desired.

GDB tracks new features using the bug database.  I see one tracepoint 
change which is me pointing out that an architecture method is broken. 
Must remember to delete the TODO file.

Andrew