From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4983 invoked by alias); 26 Jan 2006 20:37:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 4975 invoked by uid 22791); 26 Jan 2006 20:37:11 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from sibelius.xs4all.nl (HELO sibelius.xs4all.nl) (82.92.89.47) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 26 Jan 2006 20:37:09 +0000 Received: from elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl (root@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl [192.168.0.2]) by sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k0QKaXNj018682; Thu, 26 Jan 2006 21:36:34 +0100 (CET) Received: from elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl (kettenis@localhost.sibelius.xs4all.nl [127.0.0.1]) by elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.13.4/8.13.3) with ESMTP id k0QKaXaw023370; Thu, 26 Jan 2006 21:36:33 +0100 (CET) Received: (from kettenis@localhost) by elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.13.4/8.13.4/Submit) id k0QKaXJl007966; Thu, 26 Jan 2006 21:36:33 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 20:39:00 -0000 Message-Id: <200601262036.k0QKaXJl007966@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> From: Mark Kettenis To: drow@false.org CC: gdb@sourceware.org In-reply-to: <20060126055744.GA29647@nevyn.them.org> (message from Daniel Jacobowitz on Thu, 26 Jan 2006 00:57:44 -0500) Subject: Re: Using XML in GDB? References: <20060126055744.GA29647@nevyn.them.org> Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-01/txt/msg00274.txt.bz2 > Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 00:57:44 -0500 > From: Daniel Jacobowitz > > Hi folks, > > I've spent the last week and a half working on the "target available > feature" interface that I described on this list last May. A big chunk > of the last two days has been spent trying to nail down a useful format > to store (in files) and transfer (over the remote protocol) descriptions of > remote "features", especially their register sets. > > At first I was primarily focused on compactness. But I've got a pretty good > handle on that problem now; a well-defined naming scheme and some caching, > and the size of the data is no longer a major concern. Does that hold for slow serial links too? > And we get all sorts of things for free; for instance, UTF-8, which will be > handy if someone ever wants to include internationalized descriptions in the > target description. > > Does anyone have a good reason why GDB should not make use of this > well-standardized format instead of inventing additional ad-hoc formats? No objection to using a well-standardized format, but that probably only makes sense if you're not going to write your own parser. And I really would like to avoid making GDB dependent on a library that isn't standardly available on all systems we support. Mark