From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21941 invoked by alias); 1 Jul 2005 01:18:06 -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 21908 invoked by uid 22791); 1 Jul 2005 01:17:56 -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; Fri, 01 Jul 2005 01:17:56 +0000 Received: from farnswood.snap.net.nz (p57-tnt1.snap.net.nz [202.124.110.57]) by viper.snap.net.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B6F456044A; Fri, 1 Jul 2005 13:17:53 +1200 (NZST) Received: by farnswood.snap.net.nz (Postfix, from userid 501) id 2817662A99; Fri, 1 Jul 2005 02:19:47 +0100 (BST) From: Nick Roberts MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <17092.39474.533553.74584@farnswood.snap.net.nz> Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2005 01:18:00 -0000 To: Bob Rossi Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] Hooks still needed for annotations In-Reply-To: <20050701002052.GB2432@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> <20050701002052.GB2432@white> X-SW-Source: 2005-07/txt/msg00001.txt.bz2 Bob Rossi writes: > > I don't much think a parser is GDB's responsibility. Offering one as a > > convenience, sure, maybe. Note that a lot of frontends won't get to > > use it anyway! If we ship it with GDB, then it's going to be covered > > under the GPL. > > The more I think of it, the more I feel that I am correct on this. Even > if the parser was under the GPL, proprietary projects (Apple?) could > simply use the parse tree to translate the data into a nice format of > there own (XML?) and then communicate that to a parser thats linked into > there application. This type of solution would allow a closed source > company to get the benefits of an MI parser/semantical analyzer, > contribute to the project, and not have to think 1 second about low > level MI stuff in there FE. Bob, You're quoting Daniel (I think), not me. I must say though, that I don't see an immediate need for a parser. We can dictate the MI output. Why not just get that to play nice? Nick