Re: [PATCH] Removal of markup annotations

[Bob Rossi <bob@brasko.net>]

On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 12:00:28PM +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
> 
> OK but they still just mark up the output.

Well, it is not as easy for me to just parse the output without the
annotations. Since I am still going to use annotate=2 (we are not
depricating the whole thing, right?), then if you remove the breakpoints
markup I'll have to handle old GDB's that have the markup, and new GDB's
that don't.

This would be a serious pain.

>  > I could look into parsing the syntax, but I would prefered if these
>  > stayed. Is this not desirable for some reason?
> 
> They make the code in breakpoint.c harder to read.  It's a question of
> balancing the inconvenience of keeping them with that of removing them.

I really only need 3 annotations out of the ones you are removing.
breakpoint-table (to set a state that breakpoints are coming), field 5
(which we could rename to breakpoint-at), and breakpoint-table-end (to
set a state that the breakpoints are over.

To make things even easier, there could simply be a -breakpoint-begin,
and a -breakpoint-end annotation, and those two annotations could mark
up around the breakpoint. Would this clean up the code in breakpoint.c at
all?

Thanks,
Bob Rossi