From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8260 invoked by alias); 6 Oct 2004 18:30:53 -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 8243 invoked from network); 6 Oct 2004 18:30:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO epic.mail.pas.earthlink.net) (207.217.120.181) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 6 Oct 2004 18:30:52 -0000 Received: from ip216-26-76-19.dsl.du.teleport.com ([216.26.76.19] helo=stray.canids) by epic.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 1CFGYO-0004v8-00; Wed, 06 Oct 2004 11:30:20 -0700 Received: from stray.canids (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by stray.canids (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2266A502AB6; Wed, 6 Oct 2004 11:30:20 -0700 (PDT) From: Felix Lee To: Eli Zaretskii , drow@false.org, gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: GDB/MI snapshots between major release's References: <20041003163918.GB7030@white> <01c4a9ce$Blat.v2.2.2$d01969a0@zahav.net.il> <20041004131906.GB8121@white> <200410041533.i94FXsPa014648@juw15.nfra.nl> <20041004155805.GF8121@white> <01c4aabb$Blat.v2.2.2$e64c8fc0@zahav.net.il> <20041005140736.GC13586@nevyn.them.org> <01c4ab8d$Blat.v2.2.2$93dba3c0@zahav.net.il> <20041006112703.GB11747@white> <01c4ab9f$Blat.v2.2.2$e9a87e60@zahav.net.il> <20041006164621.GC12213@white> In-Reply-To: <20041006164621.GC12213@white> on Wed, 06 Oct 2004 12:46:21 EDT from Bob Rossi Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 18:41:00 -0000 Message-Id: <20041006183020.2266A502AB6@stray.canids> X-SW-Source: 2004-10/txt/msg00169.txt.bz2 Bob Rossi : > You obviously not understanding the point here. I can not even get my > front end to the point where it can look at the command. The reason is, > I can not *PARSE* the command. mostly, I don't understand why you feel you need to parse a command before understanding it, when the command is something simple like a 'who are you?' challenge/response. most programs that can speak to different clients will do some dynamic adaptation of protocol based on interaction with the client. it's not clear to me why you want to do it differently. > Therefor, I don't have a parse tree, and can not even begin to > understand what MI output command GDB just sent to me. this seems to be the miscommunication going on. I don't think I need a parse tree to begin understanding output, and it's not clear to me what programming model you're using that makes it hard to do simple output recognition without a parse tree. --