From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8629 invoked by alias); 15 Jun 2005 23:07:34 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 8434 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Jun 2005 23:07:25 -0000 Received: from viper.snap.net.nz (HELO viper.snap.net.nz) (202.37.101.8) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Wed, 15 Jun 2005 23:07:25 +0000 Received: from farnswood.snap.net.nz (p79-tnt2.snap.net.nz [202.124.108.79]) by viper.snap.net.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35EFB554A92; Thu, 16 Jun 2005 11:07:21 +1200 (NZST) Received: by farnswood.snap.net.nz (Postfix, from userid 501) id 9AD8662A9A; Thu, 16 Jun 2005 00:08:17 +0100 (BST) From: Nick Roberts MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <17072.46303.917352.717011@farnswood.snap.net.nz> Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 23:07:00 -0000 To: Bob Rossi Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] Hooks still needed for annotations In-Reply-To: <20050615155248.GC20778@white> References: <17053.24737.153388.915345@farnswood.snap.net.nz> <20050601113004.GC15414@white> <17054.10607.109160.333076@farnswood.snap.net.nz> <20050603190856.GB32722@nevyn.them.org> <17056.56022.36723.292491@farnswood.snap.net.nz> <20050603235923.GA9992@nevyn.them.org> <20050604130228.GA24976@white> <20050613031400.GF9288@nevyn.them.org> <20050615155248.GC20778@white> X-SW-Source: 2005-06/txt/msg00210.txt.bz2 > > > Also, I think it's reasonable to say that GDB should have a parser that > > > FE's can use. The only way to have a parser that can be tested properly > > > is to allow it to be packaged and tested in GDB's testsuite. Otherwise, > > > if the annotations are removed, FE's like GVD, XXGDB, DDD, KGDB, ... > > > are either going to "go the way of the bison" or they are going to have > > > to write code that handles GDB/MI. Do we really want 5-10 GDB/MI > > > parser's out there (each with there own bugs)? > > > > This is also unrelated to the removal of annotations. > > I think that this could be related (although not a prerequisite) to the > removal of annotations. Only in the sense that the annotations should > stay until GDB/MI is fully mature. I do see your point though, I just > have different motivations than you (I think). AFAIK the other frontends just use the one annotation, through the option -fullname or -annotate=1. Nick