From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17874 invoked by alias); 20 Aug 2004 18:52:01 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 17845 invoked from network); 20 Aug 2004 18:52:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 20 Aug 2004 18:52:00 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.34 #1 (Debian)) id 1ByEUZ-0005ro-Tm for ; Fri, 20 Aug 2004 14:52:00 -0400 Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 18:52:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: GDB/XMI (XML Machine Interface) Message-ID: <20040820185159.GA22481@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <20040810201440.GA24186@white> <20040819234921.GA4966@white> <20040820103420.340A64D400C@stray.canids> <20040820125443.GB5703@white> <20040820183447.GA21565@nevyn.them.org> <20040820184900.GA5806@white> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040820184900.GA5806@white> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i X-SW-Source: 2004-08/txt/msg00254.txt.bz2 On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 02:49:00PM -0400, Bob Rossi wrote: > On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 02:34:48PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 08:54:43AM -0400, Bob Rossi wrote: > > > On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 03:34:19AM -0700, Felix Lee wrote: > > > > this isn't a strong objection, interoperability takes precedence. > > > > I think an argument for xml would be more convincing if there > > > > were more than one debugger talking the same protocol. > > > > > > I can see that people are interested in writing front ends that parse the > > > output of the MI. Why? Do the same people enjoy writing linked lists > > > over and over again? Do you see my point? Parsing the output of MI is > > > completely a waste of time. > > > > Parsing MI over and over again from scratch may be a waste of time. So > > write once a library that parses MI. Then you gain most of the benefit > > of having XML parsing libraries available. > > Why would I write it once? That would be a waste of my time. So that all front ends could use it. > > Heck, parse it into XML if you'd like. > > I don't want the data to be in XML. I just want the data without writing > a parser. and a protocol that is backwards compatible. This seems like a > simple think to ask for. > > If GDB expects to have one common MI library, than it should distribute > a library that is responsible for reading it's own output, and giving > the user some data structures that will be backwards compatible. Thus, a > library to link against. So, it would be a waste of your time to write a parser that all future front ends could use, but not a waste of GDB developers' time to carry out major incompatible surgery on GDB's output format for people that already parse MI? -- Daniel Jacobowitz