Mirror of the gdb mailing list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Pierre Muller <muller@ics.u-strasbg.fr>
To: gdb@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: obsoleting the annotate level 2 interface
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 08:37:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.2.20030122091840.00ae8408@ics.u-strasbg.fr> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <vt265sjj6vi.fsf@zenia.red-bean.com>

At 08:32 21/01/2003, Jim Blandy wrote:

>GDB seems to support two different ways of doing detailed annotations
>of its output for consumption by other programs: MI and 'set annotate
>2'.  I don't think annotation level 2 has many active users, if any at
>all.  It pervades GDB's code.  Would it make sense to put 'set
>annotate 2' on the path to obsolescence?
>
>Some background: the 'set annotate' command sets the
>'annotation_level' variable.  There are only three distinguished
>values for this variable:
>
>0: nothing special, GDB behaves normally.
>1: in source.c:line_info and stack.c:print_frame_info, when we print
>   the source line, we print out something extra that helps Emacs pop
>   up the source code in a window.
>2 or greater: we enable around 250 calls to a variety of functions in
>   annotate.c to mark and identify lots of things GDB prints.
>
>I think we should keep level 1, since the standard Emacs GDB interface
>uses it, and it's not very much code.
>
>I'd like to see GDB dump level 2, since it duplicates MI, badly.  MI's
>design ensures that whoever's trying to parse GDB's output gets
>something that's well-formed, whereas annotate just sticks escape
>codes into the outgoing stream of text.  This means that, if you
>change the way anything prints, you may break an annotate level 2
>client.  But to break an MI client, you actually have to change a
>ui_out call, whose sole purpose is to produce output for clients to
>read.  So MI is a much more maintainable approach, because it's easier
>for people to see what they're doing.
>
>If folks agree that annotate level 2 should go, we could:
>- announce that annotate level 2 will be disabled in the release after
>  next;
>- in that release, disable the code, but leave it there, to see if
>  anyone complains, and whether they can be persuaded to switch to MI;
>  and
>- in the release after that, if all goes well, remove the code to
>  support annotation level 2.


I don't really understand the final implications of this removal:

-  the GDB support inside the FP IDE
(Free Pascal Integrated Development Editor)
is done by specific implementation of all the
annotate_XXX functions defined in annotate.h.

Are you going to remove all these functions?
Because the annotate.c almost empty
if we remove all code that has
'if (annotation_level > 1) '
apart from some annotation hooks...

I am not against moving to MI, but I still didn't find the time to do it....
Where can I find a clean example of an implementation of gdb that
only uses mi functions (is insight mi clean?).

 I still do not undersantd clearly the difference between 
cli and mi, is that explained in the docs?
I didn't find anything about MI interface in gdbint doc.



  parent reply	other threads:[~2003-01-22  8:37 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2003-01-21  7:38 Jim Blandy
2003-01-21 16:15 ` Andrew Cagney
2003-01-21 16:54 ` David Carlton
2003-01-21 19:04 ` Eli Zaretskii
2003-01-22  8:37 ` Pierre Muller [this message]
2003-01-22 15:06   ` Elena Zannoni
     [not found] ` <15917.39229.935851.920452@nick.uklinux.net>
2003-01-28 20:51   ` Jim Blandy
2003-01-29  1:41     ` Nick Roberts
2003-01-29  5:37       ` Andrew Cagney
2003-01-29  5:40       ` Andrew Cagney
2003-01-29 21:58         ` Jim Blandy
2003-01-29 22:00           ` Arnaud Charlet
2003-01-29 22:50           ` Andrew Cagney
2003-01-29 21:52       ` Jim Blandy
2003-01-21 17:41 Michael Elizabeth Chastain
2003-01-21 20:25 ` David Carlton
2003-01-22 16:45 ` Andrew Cagney
2003-01-21 18:09 Michael Elizabeth Chastain
2003-01-22  7:56 ` Arnaud Charlet
     [not found] <1043140716.4941.ezmlm@sources.redhat.com>
2003-01-21 19:03 ` Jim Ingham
2003-01-21 20:40 Michael Elizabeth Chastain
2003-02-04  1:45 Mike Mueller
2003-02-04  6:58 ` Andrew Cagney

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=5.0.2.1.2.20030122091840.00ae8408@ics.u-strasbg.fr \
    --to=muller@ics.u-strasbg.fr \
    --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