From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22238 invoked by alias); 6 Oct 2004 17:14:49 -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 22230 invoked from network); 6 Oct 2004 17:14:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lakermmtao07.cox.net) (68.230.240.32) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 6 Oct 2004 17:14:48 -0000 Received: from white ([68.9.64.121]) by lakermmtao07.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.03.04 201-2131-111-106-20040729) with ESMTP id <20041006171447.EFRH1787.lakermmtao07.cox.net@white>; Wed, 6 Oct 2004 13:14:47 -0400 Received: from bob by white with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CFFNH-0003Gp-00; Wed, 06 Oct 2004 13:14:47 -0400 Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 17:15:00 -0000 From: 'Bob Rossi' To: "Nathan J. Williams" Cc: Dave Korn , 'Eli Zaretskii' , gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: probing GDB for MI versions Message-ID: <20041006171446.GH12213@white> Mail-Followup-To: "Nathan J. Williams" , Dave Korn , 'Eli Zaretskii' , gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <20041006113916.GC11747@white> <20041006162225.GA12213@white> <20041006165456.GD12213@white> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i X-SW-Source: 2004-10/txt/msg00148.txt.bz2 On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 01:03:14PM -0400, Nathan J. Williams wrote: > "'Bob Rossi'" writes: > > > It is now a formal requirement of the GDB group > > I am not a particular representative of GDB or its formal decisions. I > am mostly in the sidelines of GDB development, though I happen to have > some limited commit access. Please do not mistake my remarks, mostly > informed just by watching this list, as representing the official > decisions of some body to which I do not belong. > > > The whole reason an MI grammar was invented was so that there were no > > "utterly minimal, unintelligent parser" nonsense going on in front ends. > > Well, if you want to interrogate GDB for what versions it has > avaliable (as in your suggestion for a command line option), you have > to do that somewhere, and that will still take some parsing. Would it > make you happy if the mechanism for doing that was declared, formally, > not to be part of MI and its grammar, but just a suspiciously > similar-looking interactive command? Yes, that is a great idea! and it would make me even me happy! GDB -i=list-protocols mi1 mi2 mi3 annotate1 annotate2 There could be an interpreter that is only capable of outputting the protocols of MI that it officially supports. We could document that it will output one officially supported protocol on a line. This would make me very happy. At the same time, we could output the annotate version also. Thanks, Bob Rossi