From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25480 invoked by alias); 15 Jun 2005 23:29:29 -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 25432 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Jun 2005 23:29:26 -0000 Received: from lakermmtao06.cox.net (HELO lakermmtao06.cox.net) (68.230.240.33) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Wed, 15 Jun 2005 23:29:26 +0000 Received: from white ([68.9.64.121]) by lakermmtao06.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.04.00 201-2131-118-20041027) with ESMTP id <20050615232923.WPGA749.lakermmtao06.cox.net@white>; Wed, 15 Jun 2005 19:29:23 -0400 Received: from bob by white with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1DihK0-0005hB-00; Wed, 15 Jun 2005 19:29:24 -0400 Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 23:29:00 -0000 From: Bob Rossi To: Nick Roberts Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] Hooks still needed for annotations Message-ID: <20050615232924.GB21803@white> Mail-Followup-To: Nick Roberts , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com 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> <17072.46303.917352.717011@farnswood.snap.net.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <17072.46303.917352.717011@farnswood.snap.net.nz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i X-SW-Source: 2005-06/txt/msg00211.txt.bz2 On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 11:08:15AM +1200, Nick Roberts wrote: > > > > 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. Right, I agree. However, with GDB/MI there is a compelling reason to upgrade. I'm assuming that upgrading to MI would be essential to compete functionaly with FE's like Emacs/Apple/Eclipse/CGDB. Bob Rossi