> > 	Basically, GDB over DDB gets you:
> > 
> > 	1. Familiar + more powerful interface of gdb. I've got tons of
> > 		nifty gdb macros/scripts I've picked up that help walk
> > 		data structurs in the BSD kernel, and I'm used to all
> > 		the GDB commands. Many GDB commands have no DDB
> > 		counterpart.
> 
> One thing we've thought about doing around here is sticking the
> gdb-remote protocol into DDB.  Then say you're running a serial
> console, you can drop it into DDB with a BRK and type "gdb-remote" to
> start controlling it from your `gdb -k' session elsewhere.  This would
> seem to me to be the best of both worlds!

What's the point of doing this?

If you're running kgdb remotely, you can stop execution of the kernel
(i.e. break)...  Given that, why would you ever want to use ddb, if
you have the setup to use kgdb?


It seems that the hair involved in making them coexist in the same
kernel would be ... nothing but wasteful.



cgd