From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26080 invoked by alias); 6 Jan 2005 23:31:45 -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 25999 invoked from network); 6 Jan 2005 23:31:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lakermmtao08.cox.net) (68.230.240.31) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 6 Jan 2005 23:31:37 -0000 Received: from white ([68.9.64.121]) by lakermmtao08.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.04.00 201-2131-117-20041022) with ESMTP id <20050106233137.HQKY16610.lakermmtao08.cox.net@white>; Thu, 6 Jan 2005 18:31:37 -0500 Received: from bob by white with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1Cmh6O-0007fc-00; Thu, 06 Jan 2005 18:31:36 -0500 Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 23:31:00 -0000 From: Bob Rossi To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: mec.gnu@mindspring.com, jingham@apple.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: GDB/MI Output Syntax Message-ID: <20050106233136.GA29435@white> Mail-Followup-To: Eli Zaretskii , mec.gnu@mindspring.com, jingham@apple.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <1093622671.2836.ezmlm@sources.redhat.com> <76E69B58-F852-11D8-8E70-000A958F4C44@apple.com> <412F87A4.nail3LU117EOV@mindspring.com> <20050105232657.GB27494@white> <01c4f3aa$Blat.v2.2.2$b4217d20@zahav.net.il> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <01c4f3aa$Blat.v2.2.2$b4217d20@zahav.net.il> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i X-SW-Source: 2005-01/txt/msg00052.txt.bz2 On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 06:45:33AM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 18:26:57 -0500 > > From: Bob Rossi > > Cc: jingham@apple.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com > > > > 1. will the grammar and bison syntax be good to document so that others can see it? > > I think it's enough to point to the grammar definition file in the MI > docs. There's no need to do more in the docs; the grammar should > document itself. > > > 3. Would a patch like this be acceptable even if it was accomplished? > > Why not? It's just that nothing like that is being done now, and I didn't know if it would be OK. I can't seem to get a response from Jim or Michael, so I'm trying to figure this out on my own. At this point, I don't even know what would invoke this parser. Would the TCL do it? for instance, would I have to do something like catch a MI output command in the TCL by grabbing the regular expression up to the "(gdb)" and then literally pass that string into my parser? That would en tale modifying all of the .exp files, which would really stink. I don't even know were to start. :( Any help would be appreciated. Thanks, Bob Rossi