From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15669 invoked by alias); 29 Mar 2011 14:58:07 -0000 Received: (qmail 15658 invoked by uid 22791); 29 Mar 2011 14:58:06 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 14:58:00 +0000 Received: from int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.25]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p2TEvvP3029483 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 29 Mar 2011 10:57:57 -0400 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p2TEvuTE009429; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 10:57:56 -0400 Received: from opsy.redhat.com (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p2TEvtS6020053; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 10:57:55 -0400 Received: by opsy.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id 4B00B378BE8; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 08:57:55 -0600 (MDT) From: Tom Tromey To: BarrRobot Cc: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: MI Interface - interpretation of value returned by -stack-list-locals (C++) References: <31246347.post@talk.nabble.com> Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 14:58:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <31246347.post@talk.nabble.com> (BarrRobot's message of "Sat, 26 Mar 2011 09:36:23 -0700 (PDT)") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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: 2011-03/txt/msg00174.txt.bz2 >>>>> ">" == BarrRobot writes: >> Is there an intention to present the entire output of these commands >> in the defined MI output syntax I haven't heard of any plans in that direction. >> and if not, what is the recommended way to handle this part of the >> output, i.e. is it the expectation to present it 'as is' to the user, >> or is it safe to attempt to parse out the component parts and their >> values with rules derived from the CLI output? All I can think of is that you could make a varobj for the arguments you are interested in displaying in more detail. Tom