|Availability of non-GPL debugger source code email@example.com (Mike McClosky) (2004-02-01)|
|Re: Availability of non-GPL debugger source code firstname.lastname@example.org (Paul Pluzhnikov) (2004-02-04)|
|Re: Availability of non-GPL debugger source code email@example.com (jacob navia) (2004-02-04)|
|Re: Availability of non-GPL debugger source code firstname.lastname@example.org (2004-02-08)|
|From:||Paul Pluzhnikov <email@example.com>|
|Date:||4 Feb 2004 21:29:15 -0500|
|Organization:||Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com|
|Posted-Date:||04 Feb 2004 21:29:15 EST|
"Mike McClosky" <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Because we can't expose our underlying hardware implementation, I
> don't want to make our source code modifications publicly available.
Are you saying you have an entirely new processor, for which you want
to hide the instruction set? Will your closed-source debugger not show
disassembly and registers then?
This sounds like a sure-fire recipe for a disaster: here use this
wonderful new computer (we would not tell you what the hardware is,
our compiler does not have any bugs (trust us on that), and our
debugger will only show you things we wish you to be able to see,
nothing more). Let me know how many customers you hope to find.
> Does anyone know of such a debugger?
JL> Never seen one.
Me neither. However, you might be able to buy such source from many of
the commercial debugger manufacturers, e.g. Sun, IBM, Etnus, HP
(although HP debuggers -- dde and xdb, are the worst I ever had to
use, so I'd stay away from that).
JL> the redistribution rules only
JL> come into play when you give or sell it to third parties.
Also, the number of people in the world who can understand GDB source
is probably under 1000, and many of these people will be able to
disassemble your debugger, if sufficiently motivated (i.e. whether you
publish the source or not is irrelevant).
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.