From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12348 invoked by alias); 26 Jan 2006 20:43:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 12340 invoked by uid 22791); 26 Jan 2006 20:43:43 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from romy.inter.net.il (HELO romy.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.66) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 26 Jan 2006 20:43:42 +0000 Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-83-130-211-205.inter.net.il [83.130.211.205]) by romy.inter.net.il (MOS 3.7.3-GA) with ESMTP id DLF35756 (AUTH halo1); Thu, 26 Jan 2006 22:43:37 +0200 (IST) Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 20:48:00 -0000 Message-Id: From: Eli Zaretskii To: Vladimir Prus CC: gdb@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: (message from Vladimir Prus on Thu, 26 Jan 2006 10:01:43 +0300) Subject: Re: MI -break-info command issues Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <20060124144449.GE28357@brasko.net> X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-01/txt/msg00276.txt.bz2 > From: Vladimir Prus > 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...