From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26788 invoked by alias); 13 Nov 2008 16:22:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 26665 invoked by uid 22791); 13 Nov 2008 16:22:25 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 13 Nov 2008 16:21:18 +0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id mADGLGV8016175 for ; Thu, 13 Nov 2008 11:21:16 -0500 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id mADGLGrq015989 for ; Thu, 13 Nov 2008 11:21:16 -0500 Received: from opsy.redhat.com (vpn-13-92.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.13.92]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id mADGLF6f012552; Thu, 13 Nov 2008 11:21:15 -0500 Received: by opsy.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id 704333786E3; Thu, 13 Nov 2008 09:21:14 -0700 (MST) To: Vladimir Prus Cc: Jan Kratochvil , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, Dodji Seketeli Subject: Re: [patch] MI: breakpoint "script" is a LIST References: <20081113130442.GA12991@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> <20081113134113.GA15321@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> <200811131834.26373.vladimir@codesourcery.com> From: Tom Tromey Reply-To: tromey@redhat.com X-Attribution: Tom Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 21:35:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <200811131834.26373.vladimir@codesourcery.com> (Vladimir Prus's message of "Thu\, 13 Nov 2008 18\:34\:26 +0300") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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: 2008-11/txt/msg00289.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Vladimir" == Vladimir Prus writes: Jan> The current code does not comply to any generic MI parser as it Jan> violates the MI grammar Jan> http://sourceware.org/gdb/current/onlinedocs/gdb_26.html#SEC264 , Jan> as pointed out by Dodji. Jan> It may be compliant only to some hacky buggy parsers written Jan> specifically for each MI command. Vladimir> That's interesting statement -- are you saying all MI Vladimir> frontends out there have "hacky buggy parsers"? I think he is saying that the MI output of gdb, in this case, does not conform to the MI grammar as given in the manual. So, if an implementer tries to write an MI parser relying strictly on the grammar, it will not work in this case. From one point of view this means having a hacky parser... Vladimir> This breakage is relatively new ;-) Vladimir> Date: Sat May 12 04:08:24 2001 +0000 Yuck. I guess options for fixing this are pretty limited. How about documenting, in the "GDB/MI Output Syntax" node, that sometimes lists are formatted like tuples? That may, at least, prevent future MI implementers from having to rediscover this problem on their own. Tom