From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5418 invoked by alias); 17 Feb 2006 20:18:43 -0000 Received: (qmail 5410 invoked by uid 22791); 17 Feb 2006 20:18:41 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from eastrmmtao01.cox.net (HELO eastrmmtao01.cox.net) (68.230.240.38) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 17 Feb 2006 20:18:39 +0000 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([68.9.66.48]) by eastrmmtao01.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.05.02 201-2131-123-102-20050715) with ESMTP id <20060217201839.GMBG4894.eastrmmtao01.cox.net@localhost.localdomain>; Fri, 17 Feb 2006 15:18:39 -0500 Received: from bob by localhost.localdomain with local (Exim 4.52) id 1FAC3p-0005DZ-Sm; Fri, 17 Feb 2006 15:18:37 -0500 Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 20:20:00 -0000 From: Bob Rossi To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: Vladimir Prus , gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: MI: type prefixes for values Message-ID: <20060217201837.GB19387@brasko.net> 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/1.5.9i 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/msg00214.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. I respect your opinion here. I think it's slightly impractical, but also it's already assummed correct. I really think it's OK to say, this field is a number, or this field is a string. If it's a string, no one expects to parse it. I mean, GDB probably doesn't even know how to parse it. Especially when displaying type information, or some other complex data. For instance, if it's a filename, I think it should be a string. However, I'm not going to document a grammar that parses a filename on any given system. If it outputs a type, I'm not going to document how to parse a type in a given language. For one, it's to complicated for me to even do. With that said, I think it would be necesary to allow the FE to know if a particular field is supposed to be a number or string (etc). However, parsing the contents of those strings is just not practical. Bob Rossi