From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22819 invoked by alias); 6 Oct 2004 17:15:11 -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 22803 invoked from network); 6 Oct 2004 17:15:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO NUTMEG.CAM.ARTIMI.COM) (217.40.111.177) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 6 Oct 2004 17:15:10 -0000 Received: from mace ([192.168.1.25]) by NUTMEG.CAM.ARTIMI.COM with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.0); Wed, 6 Oct 2004 18:14:49 +0100 From: "Dave Korn" To: "'Bob Rossi'" Cc: "'Eli Zaretskii'" , Subject: RE: probing GDB for MI versions Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 17:21:00 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <20041006170513.GG12213@white> Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Oct 2004 17:14:49.0298 (UTC) FILETIME=[FC4D4320:01C4ABC7] X-SW-Source: 2004-10/txt/msg00149.txt.bz2 > -----Original Message----- > From: 'Bob Rossi' > Sent: 06 October 2004 18:05 > Sorry if I was rude here, I am very frustrated. It shows. But seriously, if you have to keep on saying the same thing over and over again, we're not disagreeing with you just to be contrary, it's because either _we_ haven't understood the problem, or because _you_ haven't understood the solutions we've proposed. At that point, there's a communication difficulty going on, which will not be resolved by simply repeating the same description over and over getting more angry each time. > No one has attempted to do what I am trying to do. Write a front end > that is capable of working with different GDB's. > > If they do do this, I would like to know how they negotiate the MI > version to talk. > > Again, you seem to be saying that if I generate a parser off of the MI > output syntax, that I am somehow wrong. No, that's not what I'm saying. I fully accept that you have to know what version to deal with in order to invoke the correct full parser, and I fully accept that while in general newer versions are supersets there are also genuine backwards-incompatibilities that would require different parsing. It's entirely proper to generate a parser from the MI output syntax. The only thing I'm disagreeing is your assumption that there's no way of determining which MI version to talk without using a full MI parser. You can do it MUCH more simply than that. That's the point which people keep on having to repeat to you each time you repeat your description of the problem, because while everyone understands the initial problem, nobody sees what's wrong with the solutions that have been proposed so far. > Is this the general feel of the community? Well, it's not what I feel, as I hope I've explained patiently above. I wouldn't care to speak for the community at large, but I would be surprised if anyone else felt that it was wrong to generate a parser from the MI output syntax. What I feel is wrong is your assumption that a generated parser is the only possible means of processing plain ascii human readable text for the purpose of finding and extracting a single integer value. cheers, DaveK -- Can't think of a witty .sigline today....