From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-return-24325-listarch-gdb=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 10180 invoked by alias); 17 Feb 2006 15:00:26 -0000
Received: (qmail 10166 invoked by uid 22791); 17 Feb 2006 15:00:25 -0000
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from zigzag.lvk.cs.msu.su (HELO zigzag.lvk.cs.msu.su) (158.250.17.23)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 17 Feb 2006 15:00:25 +0000
Received: from Debian-exim by zigzag.lvk.cs.msu.su with spam-scanned (Exim 4.50) 	id 1FA75p-0004BC-85 	for gdb@sources.redhat.com; Fri, 17 Feb 2006 18:00:21 +0300
Received: from zigzag.lvk.cs.msu.su ([158.250.17.23]) 	by zigzag.lvk.cs.msu.su with esmtp (Exim 4.50) 	id 1FA70Q-0000YJ-CV; Fri, 17 Feb 2006 17:54:46 +0300
From: Vladimir Prus <ghost@cs.msu.su>
To: Bob Rossi <bob@brasko.net>
Subject: Re: MI: type prefixes for values
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 15:02:00 -0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.7.2
Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>,  gdb@sources.redhat.com
References: <dt43qh$sns$1@sea.gmane.org> <200602171735.14783.ghost@cs.msu.su> <20060217144352.GA14873@brasko.net>
In-Reply-To: <20060217144352.GA14873@brasko.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;   charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200602171754.45478.ghost@cs.msu.su>
Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2006-02/txt/msg00185.txt.bz2

On Friday 17 February 2006 17:43, Bob Rossi wrote:

> > I'm afraid I don't get you. If I'm given literal string
> > "{int (*)(int)} 0x12345678" by gdb, and I want to display it without
> > "{}", then I surely have to remove the "{}" part, no?
>
> OK, I misunderstood what you were doing there. Sorry. I have a personal
> opinion that the FE is not capable of modifing data that GDB is passing
> to it for display purposes. GDB is not bound to having {int (*)(int)},
> and it could certainly change to [int (*)(int)] in the next release. (I
> know it won't, but the point stands).
>
> Any manipulation or parsing you do of the data that GDB passes back,
> IMO, is on your hands. This is *as bad* as parsing the CLI output.

Exactly. The reason I'm raising this issue is not to have to parse this data 
in future.

> I would fully support the effort to have GDB give smaller chunks of
> information, so that FE's can build on what it's given.

Great. Seems like Daniel and Eli are of the same mind? I'll try to implement 
this, then.

- Volodya