From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24535 invoked by alias); 6 Oct 2004 18:43:28 -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 24507 invoked from network); 6 Oct 2004 18:43:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lakermmtao07.cox.net) (68.230.240.32) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 6 Oct 2004 18:43:27 -0000 Received: from white ([68.9.64.121]) by lakermmtao07.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.03.04 201-2131-111-106-20040729) with ESMTP id <20041006184326.EYF2911.lakermmtao07.cox.net@white>; Wed, 6 Oct 2004 14:43:26 -0400 Received: from bob by white with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CFGl2-0003Nn-00; Wed, 06 Oct 2004 14:43:24 -0400 Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 18:50:00 -0000 From: Bob Rossi To: Felix Lee Cc: Eli Zaretskii , drow@false.org, gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: GDB/MI snapshots between major release's Message-ID: <20041006184324.GN12213@white> Mail-Followup-To: Felix Lee , Eli Zaretskii , drow@false.org, gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <20041004131906.GB8121@white> <200410041533.i94FXsPa014648@juw15.nfra.nl> <20041004155805.GF8121@white> <01c4aabb$Blat.v2.2.2$e64c8fc0@zahav.net.il> <20041005140736.GC13586@nevyn.them.org> <01c4ab8d$Blat.v2.2.2$93dba3c0@zahav.net.il> <20041006112703.GB11747@white> <01c4ab9f$Blat.v2.2.2$e9a87e60@zahav.net.il> <20041006164621.GC12213@white> <20041006183020.2266A502AB6@stray.canids> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20041006183020.2266A502AB6@stray.canids> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i X-SW-Source: 2004-10/txt/msg00171.txt.bz2 On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 11:30:20AM -0700, Felix Lee wrote: > Bob Rossi : > > You obviously not understanding the point here. I can not even get my > > front end to the point where it can look at the command. The reason is, > > I can not *PARSE* the command. > > mostly, I don't understand why you feel you need to parse a > command before understanding it, when the command is something > simple like a 'who are you?' challenge/response. most programs > that can speak to different clients will do some dynamic > adaptation of protocol based on interaction with the client. > it's not clear to me why you want to do it differently. > > > Therefor, I don't have a parse tree, and can not even begin to > > understand what MI output command GDB just sent to me. > > this seems to be the miscommunication going on. I don't think I > need a parse tree to begin understanding output, and it's not > clear to me what programming model you're using that makes it > hard to do simple output recognition without a parse tree. > -- It's simply incorrect in my view to add the command to the MI command set if no one expects you to use MI to use it. This is wierd. I want to be able to use my MI parser's to read the MI protocol. Bob Rossi