From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
To: Vladimir Prus <ghost@cs.msu.su>
Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: MI -break-info command issues
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 20:48:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ulkx2en42.fsf@gnu.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <dr9s4n$rsf$1@sea.gmane.org> (message from Vladimir Prus on Thu, 26 Jan 2006 10:01:43 +0300)
> From: Vladimir Prus <ghost@cs.msu.su>
> Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 10:01:43 +0300
>
> Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>
> >> The extra information doesn't pertain to breakpoint itself, it's gdb
> >> opinion on formatting and is hardly usefull for machine interface. IMO,
> >> of course.
> >
> > This output is produced by the UI-independent output functions. So
> > judging its usefulness from the point of view of a GUI is taking a too
> > narrow view. The advantage of ui_out routines is that ....
>
> I'm actually talking about MI *protocol*.
What ``protocol''?
> I think that usefulness of that
> should be judged from the point of view of its intended clients -- that are
> frontends, which nowdays means GUI. If MI is protocol specifically designed
> for some task, then it should not include some fields just because TUI
> needs those fields.
You may, of course, unilaterally decide that GDB/MI was (or should be)
meant for GUIs only, but that's not what it actually is about, as far
as GDB development is concerned.
> > whoever writes
> > the code defines the layout once, and then each UI gleans whatever it
> > needs from the results. The programmer who wrote the code does not
> > need to bother which UI needs what information. Yes, that means some
> > of the info will be redundant or useless for certain types of UI, but
> > that's by design, and I think the advantages of a single interface far
> > outweigh the small annoyances of having to read and discard unused
> > parts of the output.
>
> Why can't MI layer weed out unnecessary information?
And we are back to the beginning of this discussion, sigh...
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-01-26 20:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-01-24 14:22 Vladimir Prus
2006-01-24 14:48 ` Bob Rossi
2006-01-24 15:02 ` Vladimir Prus
2006-01-24 21:24 ` Eli Zaretskii
2006-01-24 23:35 ` Bob Rossi
2006-01-25 16:05 ` Vladimir Prus
2006-01-25 19:42 ` Eli Zaretskii
2006-01-26 12:09 ` Vladimir Prus
2006-01-26 20:48 ` Eli Zaretskii [this message]
2006-01-27 12:16 ` Vladimir Prus
2006-01-27 14:55 ` Eli Zaretskii
2006-01-27 15:00 ` Bob Rossi
2006-01-27 15:12 ` Vladimir Prus
2006-01-27 15:48 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2006-01-27 15:51 ` Vladimir Prus
2006-01-27 16:11 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2006-01-27 16:01 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2006-01-27 16:44 ` Vladimir Prus
2006-01-27 17:00 ` Bob Rossi
2006-02-10 12:03 ` Documenting MI stability (Was: MI -break-info command issues) Vladimir Prus
2006-01-27 17:41 ` MI -break-info command issues Eli Zaretskii
2006-01-27 17:16 ` Eli Zaretskii
2006-01-27 17:53 ` Bob Rossi
2006-01-28 14:48 ` Eli Zaretskii
2006-01-27 17:12 ` Eli Zaretskii
2006-03-17 17:07 ` -data-read-memory docs (Was: MI -break-info command issues) Vladimir Prus
2006-03-18 11:26 ` Eli Zaretskii
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=ulkx2en42.fsf@gnu.org \
--to=eliz@gnu.org \
--cc=gdb@sources.redhat.com \
--cc=ghost@cs.msu.su \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox