From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21470 invoked by alias); 5 Jun 2007 11:12:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 21461 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Jun 2007 11:12:15 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 05 Jun 2007 11:12:13 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E703E982E4; Tue, 5 Jun 2007 11:12:11 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (dsl093-172-095.pit1.dsl.speakeasy.net [66.93.172.95]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7611C982CE; Tue, 5 Jun 2007 11:12:11 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1HvWwo-00013I-Cu; Tue, 05 Jun 2007 07:11:34 -0400 Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 11:12:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Ulrich Weigand Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, eliz@gnu.org Subject: Re: [rfc/rfa] [4/4] SPU enhancements: GDB/MI extensions Message-ID: <20070605111134.GA3993@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Ulrich Weigand , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, eliz@gnu.org References: <20070604202224.GA26302@caradoc.them.org> <200706042259.l54MxK0A025170@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200706042259.l54MxK0A025170@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15 (2007-04-09) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-06/txt/msg00048.txt.bz2 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