2 ms·

Perhaps we don't agree on certain terminology. I would opine that a debugger in the usual sense is a software that interacts with both the end user (frontend)

Perhaps we don't agree on certain terminology. I would opine that a debugger in the usual sense is a software that interacts with both the end user (frontend) and the debugee program (debugging/tracing engine), allowing the user to study, analyze, and manipulate the dynamic execution of said program. The debugger stacks on e.g. Linux and Windows are as follows: - Linux: GDB, LLDB (frontend + debugging framework); libbfd, libdwarf (object file/symbol engine); ptrace (debugging/tracing engine) - Windows: WinDbg, cdb, ntsd, kd (frontend); DbgEng.dll (debugging framework); DbgHelp.dll (object file/symbol engine); DbgUi*, Nt* syscalls, kd stubs (debugging/tracing engine) I have a question: would you call gdbserver a debugger?

Const-me 5y ago
Modern debuggers are complicated. There’re good reasons to name all of these components “a debugger”. But I think the symbolic engine deserves the name “debugger” more than the GUI. Note that in Windows, the GUI is the only piece missing from the default OS installation. The rest of the stack (DbgEng.dll, DbgHelp.dll, kernel calls, tracing, and more) is shipped with the OS. > would you call gdbserver a debugger? I’m not an expert on Linux. But based on this page https://www.tutorialspoint.com/unix_commands/gdbserver.htm https://www.tutorialspoint.com/unix_commands/gdbserver.htm probably not. I think it says that thing’s an IPC server which doesn’t do debugging on its own, doesn’t even need symbols, instead relies on the host to implement the actual debugger.