Re: [PATCH] Hooks still needed for annotations

[Bob Rossi <bob@brasko.net>]

On Sun, Jun 12, 2005 at 11:14:00PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 04, 2005 at 09:02:28AM -0400, Bob Rossi wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 03, 2005 at 07:59:24PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > > They are deprecated.  I believe there's a clear consensus that the
> > > entire annotation system is going to go, and in the near future.  Just
> > > not yet.
> > 
> > I hope that the annotations can stay until Nick and I, along with the
> > Apple and Eclipse people think that the MI is stable and ready for use.
> 
> This bit has some logical sense on its own, but not in your examples.
> Eclipse uses a hybrid GDB/CLI implementation - but not annotations (as
> far as I know, anyway)!  Apple uses a patched GDB with substantially
> different MI behavior - but not annotations (again, AFAIK)!

Hi Daniel,

Yes, you are right. I suppose the point I was trying to get across was
that GDB/MI is very good, but just not ready full time ready on it's
own. (Which we are changing rapidly)

> Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but those are not compelling
> examples of why yet another output format should stick around.  The
> fact that you and Nick are using them is a more compelling reason.

I agree with you.

> > 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).

> 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.

Well, could I maintain a copy under the LGPL, and then contribute all of
the modifications to the FSF GDB under the GPL?

Either way, I don't care much about commercial tools. If a good parser
is created, I think it's possible a lot of front ends will use it. For
instance, KGDB, DDD and GVD are all free projects that could benefit
from such a technology. Right?

> > > - Breakpoints changing is not an asynchronous event.  Stopped is an
> > > async event; breakpoint-deleted is a synchronous event, even if it
> > > comes from the user typing in a console window.
> > 
> > It fits much nicer into the asyncronous case that nick posted. If
> > we want to make it syncronous then I think there would have to be a
> > change to the MI protocol.
> > 
> > output ==>
> >     ( out-of-band-record )* [ result-record ] [ status-update ] "(gdb)" nl 
> 
> Maybe it will need a format change.  But, guess what, it is still not
> an asynchronous event.  We don't have a comprehensive story in place
> for this sort of response yet.

Yes, agreed.

Thanks,
Bob Rossi