From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27947 invoked by alias); 15 Jun 2005 23:35:40 -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 27920 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Jun 2005 23:35:37 -0000 Received: from lakermmtao05.cox.net (HELO lakermmtao05.cox.net) (68.230.240.34) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Wed, 15 Jun 2005 23:35:37 +0000 Received: from white ([68.9.64.121]) by lakermmtao05.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.04.00 201-2131-118-20041027) with ESMTP id <20050615233530.TONX13442.lakermmtao05.cox.net@white>; Wed, 15 Jun 2005 19:35:30 -0400 Received: from bob by white with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1DihPt-0005hT-00; Wed, 15 Jun 2005 19:35:29 -0400 Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 23:35:00 -0000 From: Bob Rossi To: Nick Roberts Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] Removal of markup annotations Message-ID: <20050615233529.GC21803@white> Mail-Followup-To: Nick Roberts , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <17071.40307.949193.158796@farnswood.snap.net.nz> <20050615154057.GB20778@white> <17072.46112.23475.26195@farnswood.snap.net.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <17072.46112.23475.26195@farnswood.snap.net.nz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i X-SW-Source: 2005-06/txt/msg00212.txt.bz2 On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 11:05:04AM +1200, Nick Roberts wrote: > > Out of all of the annotations that you are removing here, CGDB only > > depends on annotate_breakpoints_headers, annotate_field, > > annotate_breakpoints_table, annotate_record and > > annotate_breakpoints_table_end. > > These are undocumented annotations and just mark up the output. Could > you parse it from the syntax instead? These were documented when I wrote the CGDB annotation subsystem. Between now and then, someone changed the documentation. This link may work to demonstrate the fact. http://web.archive.org/web/20030627071226/sources.redhat.com/gdb/current/onlinedocs/gdb_toc.html I could look into parsing the syntax, but I would prefered if these stayed. Is this not desirable for some reason? > > I'll have to look deeper to verify this, but if this is true, it would > > really simplify my life if we could leave those in. That at least would > > allow CGDB to work with the next release of GDB while I work on > > GDB/MI and getting CGDB to integrate with it. > > I've come to the conclusion that a fully working GDB/MI is a major task. > Sorting out annotations could be done much more quickly. I've been extremely busy. When I finish up some tasks, I'm going to devote myself full time to this task. I would like nothing better than to see CGDB work with a fully functional GDB/MI. Bob Rossi