From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2201 invoked by alias); 30 Jan 2008 02:20:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 2190 invoked by uid 22791); 30 Jan 2008 02:20:17 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from relay1.mentorg.com (HELO relay1.mentorg.com) (192.94.38.131) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 02:19:56 +0000 Received: from svr-orw-exc-10.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.98.58]) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1JK2YM-00044r-95 from Rohit_Jain@mentor.com ; Tue, 29 Jan 2008 18:19:54 -0800 Received: from NA1-MAIL.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.98.181]) by SVR-ORW-EXC-10.mgc.mentorg.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 29 Jan 2008 18:19:52 -0800 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: GDB Annotations : support plan Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 02:20:00 -0000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20080130002103.GC28482@brasko.net> References: <18335.47450.501387.805867@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <20080130002103.GC28482@brasko.net> From: "Jain, Rohit" To: "Bob Rossi" , "Nick Roberts" Cc: Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2008-01/txt/msg00325.txt.bz2 Thanks for your responses, Nick and Bob. We already have integration with Gdb using annotations right now. But, we are considering moving to using either GDB/MI interface or Gdbtk for better and reliable integration. Knowing ahead the Gdb's support plan for annotation will help us making a decision. Regards, Rohit -----Original Message----- From: Bob Rossi [mailto:bob_rossi@cox.net]=20 Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 4:21 PM To: Nick Roberts Cc: Jain, Rohit; gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: GDB Annotations : support plan On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 12:40:10PM +1300, Nick Roberts wrote: > Jain, Rohit writes: > > Hi, > >=20 > > GDB is now supporting GDB/MI interface, and the annotation mechanism has > > now become obsolete. > >=20 > > Is there any plan to completely discontinue the support for annotations > > in future? >=20 > Yes. Agreed. > > If yes, and if you know approximate release period that annotations are > > going to exist, please let me know. >=20 > AFAIK here is no timescale. Hopefully not to soon. I still use them in my front end, but will hopefully in 2008 switch to MI. > > If no, then is it safe to assume that GDB/MI interface and annotations > > (although obsolete!) are going to co-exist? >=20 > Building frontends that use annotations is actively discouraged. If > GDB/MI does not currently meet all your requirements then please contribute > to its development. I have to say, it would be a really bad idea to use the annotations. Really bad. It's hard to do much of anything with what they provide. However, GDB/MI will waste a lot of your time if your requirements aren't meet through what it provides already. I'm just warning you. Someone in the GDB development area basically decided to create GDB/MI=20 as a nice protocol for GDB front ends. However, they didn't write a=20 client to demostrate it's purposes. Each client reimplements all the=20 work necessary to parse and interpret the protocol. Furthermore, every=20 client wants something different and so has different expectations of=20 what the interface should provide. Finally, if it doesn't do something=20 you need, the standard answer is - do it yourself. Just for the icing=20 on the cake, don't expect your patch to get reviewed for 6 months. This is my experience. I have a bison parser that parses the GDB/MI protocol, however, it only works with a bison version in CVS. Contact me if you care. Bob Rossi