Re: MI: type prefixes for values

Vladimir Prus
2006-02-17T15:00:26Z

On Friday 17 February 2006 17:43, Bob Rossi wrote:

> > I'm afraid I don't get you. If I'm given literal string
> > "{int (*)(int)} 0x12345678" by gdb, and I want to display it without
> > "{}", then I surely have to remove the "{}" part, no?
>
> OK, I misunderstood what you were doing there. Sorry. I have a personal
> opinion that the FE is not capable of modifing data that GDB is passing
> to it for display purposes. GDB is not bound to having {int (*)(int)},
> and it could certainly change to [int (*)(int)] in the next release. (I
> know it won't, but the point stands).
>
> Any manipulation or parsing you do of the data that GDB passes back,
> IMO, is on your hands. This is *as bad* as parsing the CLI output.

Exactly. The reason I'm raising this issue is not to have to parse this data
in future.

> I would fully support the effort to have GDB give smaller chunks of
> information, so that FE's can build on what it's given.

Great. Seems like Daniel and Eli are of the same mind? I'll try to implement
this, then.

- Volodya