From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12541 invoked by alias); 6 Oct 2004 21:26:55 -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 12532 invoked from network); 6 Oct 2004 21:26:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lakermmtao03.cox.net) (68.230.240.36) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 6 Oct 2004 21:26:53 -0000 Received: from white ([68.9.64.121]) by lakermmtao03.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.03.04 201-2131-111-106-20040729) with ESMTP id <20041006212653.ICUG13098.lakermmtao03.cox.net@white>; Wed, 6 Oct 2004 17:26:53 -0400 Received: from bob by white with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CFJJE-0003UN-00; Wed, 06 Oct 2004 17:26:52 -0400 Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 22:36:00 -0000 From: Bob Rossi To: Andrew Cagney Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Bob's MI objective Message-ID: <20041006212652.GB13271@white> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Cagney , gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <416451B0.3060306@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <416451B0.3060306@gnu.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i X-SW-Source: 2004-10/txt/msg00190.txt.bz2 On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 04:12:32PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > Bob, what's your overall objective here? Perhaphs our lack of > appreciation of your overriding goals is the reason that some (at least > I) are feeling somewhat puzzled and confused. I want an MI version named after myself, specifically 'gdb -i=bobmi' No seriously, I already have a front end that works off of GDB's annotate two feature. I understand that the annotate two interface could be removed from GDB. I asked you a year or two ago to wait until MI is capable of replacing the annotations. I personally wrote the two commands to MI -file-list-exec-source-file -file-list-exec-source-files that make MI capable of replacing the annotations interface for front ends that do not already know what files are involved in the users applications. I appreciate your patience in this matter. I feel that I have done my part in this matter to prove to you that I am interested and involved with the MI interface evolving for small front ends. Now I am beginning to add the MI interface to my front end. I spent the last few weeks looking at the grammar of the currently documented MI output syntax. The documentation is incorrect, but mostly correct and I suggested some changes to it so that others could benefit. I have come up with the rules and generated a parser that is capable of parsing an MI output command. I would like to validate the output of GDB's MI commands in the testsuite to prove to us all that every MI command obeys the protocol. This is something I am interested in doing for the benefit of all front end developers. Not just myself. Now, my next objective is to figure these things, * I would like to know what GDB's policy is in regards to supporting old MI protocols. ( I have received several opposing views on this ) * I would like to ensure that my front end works well with snapshots of GDB. I do not want to work with the MI development protocol, I just want to work with the last officially supported protocol. * I would like to make sure that development protocols are never used by my front end and that I can figure out all of the officially supported MI protocols that a given GDB supports. By being able to understand the highest officially supported protocol that both GDB and my front end understand is critical to me. I think it is safe to say that a front end needs to know the MI protocols that a given GDB supports. The way we get that info from GDB to the front end is the question in debate. Thanks, Bob Rossi