Re: obsoleting annotate level 2

[Elena Zannoni <ezannoni@redhat.com>]

Peter Kovacs writes:
 > On Tue, Feb 04, 2003 at 11:34:31AM -0500, Elena Zannoni wrote:
 > > If you have to keep supporting the old gdb, you will need to support
 > > two interfaces to gdb. Unless you are importing MI into
 > > 4.17.gnat.3.14p-1. If you have no control over 4.17.gnat.3.14p-1, and
 > > supporting that is your primary goal, I don't see what FSF gdb can do
 > > to correct that, ie I see two conflicting goals here.
 > 
 > Yes, we will continue to support --annotate=2 as well as the MI
 > interface.  I'm not sure why you see 2 conflicting goals.  Both
 > interfaces can be supported with no problems, after all we're not
 > interested in embedding our code into gdb itself.

OK, just wanted to point that out. They seem a conflicting in the
sense that one gdb is very old, and very different from the current
FSF one, but if you are ok with maintaining 2 interfaces, there is no
problem.

 > 
 > >  > As for the MI issues, I think we'd be willing to move over to the MI
 > >  > interface if and when it supports some of the readline style of input.
 > > 
 > > About readline, there was a conscious design decision to not provide
 > > it with MI, because the editing capabilities would be implemented at a
 > > different level, in the GUI console, not in gdb. With the interpreter
 > > changes the console becomes now a concrete possibility.  BTW, you may
 > > want to take a look at Apple's Project Builder, I don't know what
 > > level of editing they provided with their console.
 > 
 > I'm not sure I understand this.  How can the stand-alone GUI query gdb
 > for a list of symbol names?  For example, I type break m<tab>, and it
 > completes to "main".
 > 

there is a bug open against the lack of a 'completion' kind of
command in MI. See bug 953 in http://sources.redhat.com/gdb/bugs/

 > Unfortunately I don't have access to Apple's Project Builder.  Do they
 > offer the source to their debugger?
 > 

I think they do on their website. I don't have a pointer handy, sorry.

 > gdb's console is already quite capable, and many people are extremely
 > familiar with it.  I think it would be a shame if we have to completely
 > reimplement a console front-end to gdb.
 > 

insight does this too. Maybe that's another place to look.

elena


 > - Peter
 > 
 > -- 
 > Peter D. Kovacs <peter@kovax.org>