Re: MI rules

["Alain Magloire" <alain@qnx.com>]

> 
> On Wed, Sep 22, 2004 at 10:58:34AM -0400, Alain Magloire wrote:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > >I currently have a set of rules that parse an MI output command. This
> > > >includes the flex file, the bison file and an extra source file that
> > > >populates an in memory data structure representing the MI output
> > > >command.
> > > >
> > > >The rules from the documentation had to change only slightly to conform
> > > >to what GDB is actually outputting. The problem is, I haven't tested the 
> > > >parser extensively. The reason for this is because I am waiting to here 
> > > >from the GDB developers how to interpret the data semantically once it 
> > > >is acquired. I believe that every MI output command needs to have a
> > > >header describing what type of MI output command is being transmitted.
> > > >With this knowledge, the front end would understand exactly what
> > > >information it needs to grab from the parse tree. Otherwise, the front
> > > >end gets confusing at best.
> > > 
> > > How are the existing frontends doing it then? Do they just wait after
> > > a sent command until they receive a reply and take it as the one they're
> > > looking for?
> > > 
> > > >BTW, I took a look at the eclipse MI parser, from what I can tell, it
> > > >uses a hybrid MI/CLI approach, and simply parses the MI command with
> > > >string compares. As far as I can tell, this method will be very buggy
> > > >and confusing in the long run.
> > > 
> > 
> > 8-), a very severe criticism.
> > It is a hand written decent parser.  It was simple to write instead of
> > using JavaCC(flex/bison).  The problem is not the parser but
> > the non conformity or rather the lack of feature of the MI Protocol implementation,
> > but that said it should not be seen as a complaint to the GDB folks,
> > MI was a great step in the right direction.
> 
> I wasn't being critical at all. Personally, I don't like the fact that
> Eclipse use's a hybrid approach to getting data out of GDB. I have not
> even started adding MI to CGDB because I've been working on GDB,
> bringing it up to the standards I need to get CGDB fully usable by only
> using MI. If others would follow this approach, I'm sure my life would
> have been a lot easier, and CGDB would have been far more along.
> 

Agreed.

>
...
> 
> Anyways, hope I didn't insult you or the eclipse project,

8-) [[laughs]] none taken ..
speak your mind, I should have put more smileys.

> we are all working on the same side here.
> 

Yes.