From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3600 invoked by alias); 1 Jul 2005 00:21:20 -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 3423 invoked by uid 22791); 1 Jul 2005 00:21:02 -0000 Received: from lakermmtao06.cox.net (HELO lakermmtao06.cox.net) (68.230.240.33) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Fri, 01 Jul 2005 00:21:01 +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 <20050701002051.NNBT749.lakermmtao06.cox.net@white>; Thu, 30 Jun 2005 20:20:51 -0400 Received: from bob by white with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1Do9H3-0000qU-00; Thu, 30 Jun 2005 20:20:53 -0400 Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2005 00:21:00 -0000 From: Bob Rossi To: Nick Roberts , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] Hooks still needed for annotations Message-ID: <20050701002052.GB2432@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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050613031400.GF9288@nevyn.them.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i X-SW-Source: 2005-07/txt/msg00000.txt.bz2 > > 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 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 Rossi