Re: GDB/XMI (XML Machine Interface)

Daniel Jacobowitz
2004-08-20T18:52:01Z

On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 02:49:00PM -0400, Bob Rossi wrote:
> 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.

So that all front ends could use it.

> > 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.

So, it would be a waste of your time to write a parser that all future
front ends could use, but not a waste of GDB developers' time to carry
out major incompatible surgery on GDB's output format for people that
already parse MI?

--
Daniel Jacobowitz