Re: GDB/XMI (XML Machine Interface)

Bob Rossi
2004-08-20T18:49:07Z

On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 02:34:48PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 08:54:43AM -0400, Bob Rossi wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 03:34:19AM -0700, Felix Lee wrote:
> > > this isn't a strong objection, interoperability takes precedence.
> > > I think an argument for xml would be more convincing if there
> > > were more than one debugger talking the same protocol.
> >
> > I can see that people are interested in writing front ends that parse the
> > output of the MI. Why? Do the same people enjoy writing linked lists
> > over and over again? Do you see my point? Parsing the output of MI is
> > completely a waste of time.
>
> Parsing MI over and over again from scratch may be a waste of time. So
> write once a library that parses MI. Then you gain most of the benefit
> of having XML parsing libraries available.

Why would I write it once? That would be a waste of my time.

> Heck, parse it into XML if you'd like.

I don't want the data to be in XML. I just want the data without writing
a parser. and a protocol that is backwards compatible. This seems like a
simple think to ask for.

If GDB expects to have one common MI library, than it should distribute
a library that is responsible for reading it's own output, and giving
the user some data structures that will be backwards compatible. Thus, a
library to link against.

Bob Rossi