From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26323 invoked by alias); 26 Jan 2006 21:57:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 26312 invoked by uid 22791); 26 Jan 2006 21:57:35 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31.1) with ESMTP; Thu, 26 Jan 2006 21:57:33 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1F2F7T-0004vo-Pu; Thu, 26 Jan 2006 16:57:31 -0500 Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 22:02:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Mark Kettenis Cc: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Using XML in GDB? Message-ID: <20060126215731.GB17685@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Mark Kettenis , gdb@sourceware.org References: <20060126055744.GA29647@nevyn.them.org> <43D8BB89.4090900@st.com> <20060126134124.GA3107@nevyn.them.org> <43D8E573.1060004@st.com> <20060126163832.GA7113@nevyn.them.org> <200601262103.k0QL3Jdo030305@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20060126211252.GA17685@nevyn.them.org> <200601262140.k0QLesNa008856@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200601262140.k0QLesNa008856@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-IsSubscribed: yes 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/msg00285.txt.bz2 On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 10:40:54PM +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote: > No software patents here yet ;-). And some laws that explicitly allow > for interoperability. You're a lucky man in a smart country. In any case, to change the subject. To people whose targets don't already come with SPIRIT, I don't think there's any benefit in using it; while it can accomodate GDB's current needs, it's a ridiculous amount of overkill. Like swatting a fly with a well-targeted asteroid. To people whose targets _do_ come with SPIRIT descriptions, i.e. mostly SoC designers, I suspect that GDB support for those descriptions could be incredibly handy. But we're never going to pull this kind of data over the wire, so I think it represents a more or less orthoganal feature to my current plans. I'm not going to pursue it. If it builds automatically in a GDB source tree, do you have any concerns about using a third-party XML parser? -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery