[Bug mi/9659] -break-list can produce non MI compliant output

[Bug mi/9659] -break-list can produce non MI compliant output

[dimitar.zhekov at gmail dot com]

http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9659

Dimitar Zhekov <dimitar.zhekov at gmail dot com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |dimitar.zhekov at gmail dot
                   |                            |com

--- Comment #2 from Dimitar Zhekov <dimitar.zhekov at gmail dot com> 2012-06-09 16:04:18 UTC ---
The bug is still present in 7.4.1. Additionally, multiply-location breakpoints
generate non-compliant output as well:

^done,BreakpointTable={nr_rows="2",nr_cols="6",hdr=[...],body=[bkpt={number="3",...},{number="3.1",...}]}

According to "GDB/MI Output Syntax", a list can (a) be empty, (b) contain
values or (c) contain results. But in the above output, body contains both
result and value.

The async break messages in 7.4+ have the same type of error:

=breakpoint-created,bkpt={number="3",...},{number="3.1",...}

contains both result and value, but async output may include results only.

In general, it's safer to assume that both list and tuple may contain a mix of
results and values. At this point, it may be better to change the
documentation...

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug mi/9659] -break-list can produce non MI compliant output

[dimitar.zhekov at gmail dot com]

http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9659

--- Comment #3 from Dimitar Zhekov <dimitar.zhekov at gmail dot com> 2012-06-09 16:14:03 UTC ---
Almost forgot: -break-insert for multiply-location breakpoints generates
invalid output too:

^done,bkpt={number="3",...},{number="3.1",...}

same as the async breakpoint messages.

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug mi/9659] -break-list can produce non MI compliant output

[david.narvaez at computer dot org]

http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9659

David E. Narváez <david.narvaez at computer dot org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |david.narvaez at computer
                   |                            |dot org

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug mi/9659] -break-list can produce non MI compliant output

[david.narvaez at computer dot org]

http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9659

--- Comment #4 from David E. Narváez <david.narvaez at computer dot org> 2012-06-19 17:29:41 UTC ---
Created attachment 6458
  --> http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=6458
Display breakpoint commands as a list

I don't think there's any reason to display breakpoint commands as a tuple,
even if there's only one, so this patch simply changes the output from a tuple
to a list.

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug mi/9659] -break-list can produce non MI compliant output

[david.narvaez at computer dot org]

http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9659

--- Comment #5 from David E. Narváez <david.narvaez at computer dot org> 2012-06-19 17:32:10 UTC ---
Created attachment 6459
  --> http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=6459
Display sub-breakpoints in the correct tuple format

Add a variable name to the tuples that are displayed as sub-breakpoints in a
multiple breakpoints scenario.

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug mi/9659] -break-list can produce non MI compliant output

[david.narvaez at computer dot org]

http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9659

--- Comment #6 from David E. Narváez <david.narvaez at computer dot org> 2012-06-19 17:38:59 UTC ---
Is there any developer taking care of these issues? I added a couple of patches
to address some of the issues reported to see if we can get into the technical
and administrative discussions required, but there's not much users can do if
there's no developer to discuss with.

What else do we need to do to have this fixed?

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug mi/9659] -break-list can produce non MI compliant output

[dimitar.zhekov at gmail dot com]

http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9659

--- Comment #7 from Dimitar Zhekov <dimitar.zhekov at gmail dot com> 2012-06-20 18:21:19 UTC ---
As you can see, it's unassigned since 2008... I don't even think that fixing
the output is a good idea at this point: it may break all the front-ends, and
will force their authors to support both variants for some time, adding
complexity. And it's not like using the right formats will provide any more
functionality/information - that's more a fix for the sake of fixing. Changing
the documentation will "fix" it just as well, without breaking the existing
code.

I respect your effort though, probably took you quite a time...

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug mi/9659] -break-list can produce non MI compliant output

[david.narvaez at computer dot org]

http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9659

--- Comment #8 from David E. Narváez <david.narvaez at computer dot org> 2012-06-20 19:25:08 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> As you can see, it's unassigned since 2008... I don't even think that fixing
> the output is a good idea at this point: it may break all the front-ends, and
> will force their authors to support both variants for some time, adding
> complexity. And it's not like using the right formats will provide any more
> functionality/information - that's more a fix for the sake of fixing. Changing
> the documentation will "fix" it just as well, without breaking the existing
> code.

IIUC, that is to say we should ignore this bug because it has been ignored for
quite long. Extending this to every open bug in the bug tracker gives us an
easy way to drop the bug count to zero.

If fixing this will break frontends, well, the bugs themselves broke parsers in
those frontends and it doesn't look like anybody cares, so why would it matter
now? Plus, complex code for supporting two versions is as complex as the code
for supporting special cases of outputs, just that supporting a couple of
versions for some time is temporary.

That being said, I'm not a GDB developer so I can't take those decisions. What
I would like, though, is to see _any_ decision about these as I'm a frontend
developer and I need to know what will the final format of multiple breakpoints
be if  there is an open bug about it.

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug mi/9659] -break-list can produce non MI compliant output

[dimitar.zhekov at gmail dot com]

http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9659

--- Comment #9 from Dimitar Zhekov <dimitar.zhekov at gmail dot com> 2012-06-21 19:06:51 UTC ---
Your point is valid, of course. But once again: the right formats will not
provide any more or better MI functionality.

I am a front-end developer as well. Discarding the difference between list and
tuple, and allowing a mix of named and unnamed arguments, produced a bit
simpler parser for me. But I was only checking the presence or lack of names to
make sure that the output is MI-compliant anyway. Your approach may be
different.

However, "bkpt=" for locations will affect me. :( When a breakpoint lacks
"type=...", my break parsing tries the tuple name next, as in "done,wpt={...}".
So I, too, would like to know what the final MULTIPLE format will be.

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug mi/9659] -break-list can produce non MI compliant output

[niko.sams at gmail dot com]

http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9659

Niko Sams <niko.sams at gmail dot com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |niko.sams at gmail dot com

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug mi/9659] -break-list can produce non MI compliant output

[tromey at redhat dot com]

http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9659

Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |tromey at redhat dot com

--- Comment #10 from Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com> 2012-12-19 16:10:47 UTC ---
The best way to send patches is to the list, following
http://sourceware.org/gdb/contribute/

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug mi/9659] -break-list can produce non MI compliant output

[dima at sphinx dot net dot ru]

------- Additional Comments From dima at sphinx dot net dot ru  2009-07-14 12:48 -------
*** Bug 10389 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |dima at sphinx dot net dot
                   |                            |ru


http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9659

------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.