Re: [PATCH] Hooks still needed for annotations

Bob Rossi
2005-06-15T23:29:29Z

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