Re: probing GDB for MI versions

'Bob Rossi'
2004-10-06T18:50:36Z

On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 02:41:09PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
>
> >>>Will someone explain to me how they expect to write a parser
> >>>capable of
> >>>getting some information out of MI2, but prove to me that it will work
> >>>with MI100.
> >
> >
> > Simple.
> >
> > Any time anyone proposes changing the output format of the -mi-version
> >command, or removing it, we'll just say no. Fr'ex:
> >
> > The -mi-version command will ALWAYS AND FOREVER output a string of the
> >format
> >
> >"Highest supported MI version is XXXX"
>
> anything like that.
>
> >where XXXX is an ASCII decimal integer. Any program can then read the
> >output from an invocation of gdb and simply discard everything up until it
> >finds that string, then parse the integer out.
>
> Right, and tested (as always) using the testsuite.
>
> I find this focus on such pedantic details both puzzling and time
> wasting. Especially given that any code intended to handle multiple MI
> variants must be adhoc. Otherwize it won't work with all the variants
> that pre-date the above - mi0, mi1, mi2 (prior to the above extension.

You are stating that a parser that implements an MIn Output syntax has
to be adhoc? I plan on having a parser for each of these interface's and
none of them is adhoc. I don't think you should force your adhoc
approach onto the front end developers.

> MI needs is additional commands and extensions, driven by the needs of
> Free software projects. Neither of those - EMACS and Eclipse - appear
> to be having problems this technical nits such as this.

I can't explain why.

Bob Rossi