From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>
To: chanskw@ca.ibm.com
Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: Questions about GDB-MI Interface
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 07:55:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3CC6C74B.2030401@cygnus.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <OF27940512.5ED64840-ON85256BA4.005B8B5F@torolab.ibm.com>
> 2. On the same topic, when we use CLI-in-MI we see that we sometimes get
> pure CLI output, sometimes pure MI output, and sometimes a mixture of
> both. The Users Guide hints that this is normal, when it says to expect
> an "unsupported hybrid of GDB/MI and CLI output", but we don't know if we
> can provide a reliable and high-fidelity console window under these
> conditions. Do you have any suggestions how we should proceed, or how
> other front ends have dealt with this?
>
> Ideally, we'd like to let our users continue to use the CLI, and see
> CLI-style output, while our GUI simultaneously interacts with gdb using MI.
> So we'd like to change the definition of MI to support this, and have all
> commands change their output style based on whether they are invoked via
> the CLI or MI.
>
> We found one of the recent discussions from GDB Mailing List addressing
> this specific problem:
>
> http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb/2002-04/msg00348.html
>
> Apple has implemented a solution to allow front-ends to switch GDB's
> interpreter between MI and CLI. This solution will allow frontend to relay
> commands entered by user to GDB, and responses coming back from GDB will be
> in CLI-style. CLI-style responses can be sent back to our console window
> and will be meaningful to users.
Can I encourage you to look at Apple's contributed code. See:
ftp://sources.redhat.com/pub/gdb/contrib/apple/
As was noted by JimI, they came up with a way to address the problem.
You could even consider extracting the relevant changes from the patch.
However, before doing this, you would need to establish a GDB
copyright assignment/disclaimer.
With regard to annotations and using GDB's CLI directly, I really would
discourage this. They are both largely untested(1) and make your code
reliant on the behavour of the underlying CLI (something you can assume
will change).
Andrew
(1) Some what ironically, it was the MI developers that added the
annotation tests to GDB.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-04-24 14:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-04-23 10:36 chanskw
2002-04-24 7:55 ` Andrew Cagney [this message]
2002-04-24 13:01 chanskw
2002-04-24 21:55 ` Eli Zaretskii
2002-04-25 6:41 ` Andrew Cagney
2002-04-25 7:05 ` Eli Zaretskii
2002-04-25 7:41 ` Andrew Cagney
2002-04-25 11:59 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2002-04-25 9:25 chanskw
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=3CC6C74B.2030401@cygnus.com \
--to=ac131313@cygnus.com \
--cc=chanskw@ca.ibm.com \
--cc=gdb@sources.redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox