From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3452 invoked by alias); 17 Feb 2006 20:15:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 3444 invoked by uid 22791); 17 Feb 2006 20:15:41 -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; Fri, 17 Feb 2006 20:15:40 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1FAC0v-000862-6N; Fri, 17 Feb 2006 15:15:37 -0500 Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 20:17:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: Vladimir Prus , gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: MI: type prefixes for values Message-ID: <20060217201537.GA30881@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Eli Zaretskii , Vladimir Prus , gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <200602171658.23427.ghost@cs.msu.su> <200602171724.03824.ghost@cs.msu.su> <20060217190418.GA27304@nevyn.them.org> <20060217193556.GA28754@nevyn.them.org> <20060217195909.GA19387@brasko.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: 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: 2006-02/txt/msg00211.txt.bz2 On Fri, Feb 17, 2006 at 10:04:13PM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 14:59:09 -0500 > > From: Bob Rossi > > Cc: Vladimir Prus , gdb@sources.redhat.com > > > > > MI should have a regular syntax which allows such a spec. If MI > > > doesn't support that, then it misses its main design goal. > > > > I completly disagree. MI has a design spec that allows a FE to parse the > > output of GDB. The data that it get's back from GDB is a whole different > > story. > > Data is just one part of the output of GDB, so it should be parsable > like the rest, IMO. And how would you suggest to accomplish this daunting task? The data is language-specific and program-specific. It's been up and down GDB's value machinery and formatted in the most user-intelligible way that we can manage. If the front end needs to know more about it, then it should use the MI variable-object interface to see its internal structure and bits; that's how you're supposed to peek inside of values. The real problem here is that Vladimir is trying to parse the result of -data-evaluate-expression, which is defined as opaque. Maybe someone should design a major interface change where values are returned as varobjs instead of strings. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery