Re: MI rules

[Fabian Cenedese <Cenedese@indel.ch>]

>I currently have a set of rules that parse an MI output command. This
>includes the flex file, the bison file and an extra source file that
>populates an in memory data structure representing the MI output
>command.
>
>The rules from the documentation had to change only slightly to conform
>to what GDB is actually outputting. The problem is, I haven't tested the 
>parser extensively. The reason for this is because I am waiting to here 
>from the GDB developers how to interpret the data semantically once it 
>is acquired. I believe that every MI output command needs to have a
>header describing what type of MI output command is being transmitted.
>With this knowledge, the front end would understand exactly what
>information it needs to grab from the parse tree. Otherwise, the front
>end gets confusing at best.

How are the existing frontends doing it then? Do they just wait after
a sent command until they receive a reply and take it as the one they're
looking for?

>BTW, I took a look at the eclipse MI parser, from what I can tell, it
>uses a hybrid MI/CLI approach, and simply parses the MI command with
>string compares. As far as I can tell, this method will be very buggy
>and confusing in the long run.

That's why I asked. There are Eclipse, KDevelop and I don't know how
many other frontends it's hard to believe they always wrote a new parser.
And even if they did was it handwritten or generated... I guess then I'm
looking forward to your results :)

bye  Fabi