Re: GDB/MI Output Syntax

[Jim Ingham <jingham@apple.com>]

Sorry for not responding, we're really busy here right now.

I don't think there is any way to use your parser that won't involve 
changing the testsuite files.  After all, they are just passing regular 
expressions, and unless you are ALSO willing to write a parser that 
turns the mi testsuite regular expressions into some sensible form (not 
something I would suggest) you are going to have to rewrite these 
tests.

I was more thinking of this as a project that you would use to write 
new tests, and then any time a change in the mi output broke a test 
case, you could rewrite it using the new form - since you are going to 
have to rewrite it anyway...

The way that I was thinking to use the parser, is to write a command 
like: "gdb_mi_parse_output" that would take the mi output, run your 
parser on it, and turn the result into some Tcl data structure. This 
would be a C based command, so we would have to build a little Tcl 
extension to do this, and include it with gdb when we ran the test 
suite.

The mi output is all basically just nested lists, so you could probably 
express it as a nested list pretty easily.  I'd have to think a bit 
about how to design this well.  Anyway, then you could rewrite the test 
suite cases to just pull fields out of the Tcl data structure, and see 
if the values were what was expected.

  Unfortunately, I am definitely not going to have any time to work on 
this in the next little while, however.

Jim

On Jan 6, 2005, at 3:31 PM, Bob Rossi wrote:



> On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 06:45:33AM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>
>>> Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 18:26:57 -0500
>>> From: Bob Rossi <bob@brasko.net>
>>> Cc: jingham@apple.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com
>>>
>>>    1. will the grammar and bison syntax be good to document so that 
>>> others can see it?
>>>
>>
>> I think it's enough to point to the grammar definition file in the MI
>> docs.  There's no need to do more in the docs; the grammar should
>> document itself.
>>
>>
>>>    3. Would a patch like this be acceptable even if it was 
>>> accomplished?
>>>
>>
>> Why not?
>>
>
> It's just that nothing like that is being done now, and I didn't know 
> if
> it would be OK.
>
> I can't seem to get a response from Jim or Michael, so I'm trying to
> figure this out on my own.
>
> At this point, I don't even know what would invoke this parser.
> Would the TCL do it? for instance, would I have to do something like
> catch a MI output command in the TCL by grabbing the regular expression
> up to the "(gdb)" and then literally pass that string into my parser?
>
> That would en tale modifying all of the .exp files, which would really
> stink.
>
> I don't even know were to start. :(
> Any help would be appreciated.
>
> Thanks,
> Bob Rossi
>