From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27804 invoked by alias); 22 Sep 2004 16:59:04 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 27779 invoked from network); 22 Sep 2004 16:59:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hub.ott.qnx.com) (209.226.137.76) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 22 Sep 2004 16:59:02 -0000 Received: from smtp.ott.qnx.com (smtp.ott.qnx.com [10.0.2.158]) by hub.ott.qnx.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA24847 for ; Wed, 22 Sep 2004 12:55:43 -0400 Received: (from alain@localhost) by smtp.ott.qnx.com (8.8.8/8.6.12) with UUCP id MAA23293 for gdb@sources.redhat.com; Wed, 22 Sep 2004 12:59:02 -0400 Message-Id: <200409221659.MAA23293@smtp.ott.qnx.com> Subject: Re: MI rules To: bob@brasko.net (Bob Rossi) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 16:59:00 -0000 From: "Alain Magloire" Cc: alain@qnx.com (Alain Magloire), Cenedese@indel.ch (Fabian Cenedese), gdb@sources.redhat.com In-Reply-To: <20040922161806.GC26132@white> from "Bob Rossi" at Sep 22, 2004 12:18:06 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-09/txt/msg00188.txt.bz2 > > 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.