From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24370 invoked by alias); 15 Apr 2008 23:48:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 24358 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Apr 2008 23:48:25 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 15 Apr 2008 23:48:08 +0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m3FNm3JO015043; Tue, 15 Apr 2008 19:48:04 -0400 Received: from pobox.corp.redhat.com (pobox.corp.redhat.com [10.11.255.20]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id m3FNm3ib022143; Tue, 15 Apr 2008 19:48:03 -0400 Received: from opsy.redhat.com (vpn-248-137.boston.redhat.com [10.13.248.137]) by pobox.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id m3FNm24N027062; Tue, 15 Apr 2008 19:48:03 -0400 Received: by opsy.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id CA19B888058; Tue, 15 Apr 2008 17:48:01 -0600 (MDT) To: "Doug Evans" Cc: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: GDB MI Interface References: <47FF7ECA.4090104@sun.com> <18434.33686.377360.769555@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> From: Tom Tromey Reply-To: tromey@redhat.com X-Attribution: Tom Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 09:47:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: (Doug Evans's message of "Tue\, 15 Apr 2008 13\:46\:28 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.1 (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: 2008-04/txt/msg00144.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Doug" == Doug Evans writes: Doug> Is it lamentable that we have both gdbmi and (soon) a real scripting Doug> interface with no real commonality? Just thinking out loud ... I Doug> don't have an answer. I worried about this a bit, particularly when hacking up the event code to be able to notify python even when some other interpreter has been chosen. Now I think the two things are orthogonal. You need something like MI so that UIs, even text-y ones like Emacs, can drive gdb intelligently. But, for folks using the CLI, you need better scripting than what has historically been provided. I suppose in theory this could be provided by whatever is driving MI -- but perhaps at the cost of having to rewrite app-specific gdb scripts once per UI. Tom