Re: [rfc/rfa] [4/4] SPU enhancements: GDB/MI extensions

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>]

On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 12:59:20AM +0200, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
> Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> 
> > Right, but I didn't mean something quite that ambitious.  What does
> > the IDE end up doing with the output of these commands, and does it
> > want to parse them or just display them as text?
> 
> It certainly parses the information for display; for example, the
> -spu-info-dma command results in output like (added whitespace for
> better readability):
> 
> (gdb)
> -spu-info-dma
> ^done,SPUInfoDMA=
> {
>   dma_info_type="0x0",
>   dma_info_mask="0x20",
>   dma_info_status="0x0",

OK.  One way we could display this would be as a "struct" and with a
varobj.

I can't really explain why I think target-specific MI commands are a
bad idea.  Maybe they aren't; I'd love to hear other people's
opinions.  I worry a bit about GDB/MI diverging between targets.

> It would appear that this makes sense only if the IDE is capable of
> generically displaying any such -arch-info output.  This is a bit
> different from our current -spu-info implementation where the IDE
> has its own understanding of each of the various commands, and how
> to best display the result of each of them.

Not necessarily.  I hope it would make sense if the IDE is capable of
generic display, even if it is also capable of more specific display.
Or it may just be a horrible idea.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery