From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32464 invoked by alias); 22 Sep 2004 14:10:59 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 32456 invoked from network); 22 Sep 2004 14:10:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO smtp.hispeed.ch) (62.2.95.247) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 22 Sep 2004 14:10:57 -0000 Received: from indel.ch (217-162-27-127.dclient.hispeed.ch [217.162.27.127]) by smtp.hispeed.ch (8.12.6/8.12.6/tornado-1.0) with SMTP id i8MEAuo9019543 for ; Wed, 22 Sep 2004 16:10:56 +0200 Received: from fabi.indel.ch [192.168.1.19] by indel.ch [127.0.0.1] with SMTP (MDaemon.v2.7.SP5.R) for ; Wed, 22 Sep 2004 16:08:55 +0200 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.1.20040922155506.01d24ab8@NT_SERVER> X-Sender: cenedese@NT_SERVER (Unverified) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 14:10:00 -0000 To: gdb@sources.redhat.com From: Fabian Cenedese Subject: Re: MI rules In-Reply-To: <20040922134802.GA26132@white> References: <5.2.0.9.1.20040922153212.01d6bb38@NT_SERVER> <5.2.0.9.1.20040922153212.01d6bb38@NT_SERVER> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: gdb@sources.redhat.com X-Return-Path: cenedese@indel.ch X-SW-Source: 2004-09/txt/msg00177.txt.bz2 >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