From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5671 invoked by alias); 7 Oct 2004 16:09:59 -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 5644 invoked from network); 7 Oct 2004 16:09:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO biscayne-one-station.mit.edu) (18.7.7.80) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 7 Oct 2004 16:09:57 -0000 Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (OUTGOING-AUTH.MIT.EDU [18.7.22.103]) by biscayne-one-station.mit.edu (8.12.4/8.9.2) with ESMTP id i97G9nGs021498; Thu, 7 Oct 2004 12:09:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from contents-vnder-pressvre.mit.edu (CONTENTS-VNDER-PRESSVRE.MIT.EDU [18.7.16.67]) (authenticated bits=56) (User authenticated as nathanw@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.12.4/8.12.4) with ESMTP id i97G9lJg011474 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 7 Oct 2004 12:09:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from nathanw@localhost) by contents-vnder-pressvre.mit.edu (8.12.9) id i97G9lUZ020951; Thu, 7 Oct 2004 12:09:47 -0400 (EDT) To: "'Bob Rossi'" Cc: Dave Korn , gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: probing GDB for MI versions References: <20041007143716.GB14402@white> <20041007145511.GA14573@white> From: "Nathan J. Williams" Organization: Wasabi Systems, Inc. Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 16:31:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20041007145511.GA14573@white> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.42 X-SW-Source: 2004-10/txt/msg00220.txt.bz2 "'Bob Rossi'" writes: > Adding this new function -mi-version, will be adding the first command > to the MI command set that is supposed to be used by a front end by > *not* using an MI protocol. It is confusing and non-sensical to add the > first MI command to the MI command set that can not be used by a front > end that speaks the MI protocol. That this command is most useful to a pre-parser deciding which parser to invoke does not mean it can't be used, or isn't useful to that full-fledged parser. A parser whose job was validating output (in the testsuite, say) would want to and be able to exercise it, as would a parser that wanted to verify that it was dealing with a version of MI it understood - and it can do that within the parse tree and formal structure of MI. The way you are using a parser is entirely your own choice, not dictated by the way MI is specified; as an example, we've talked about generated parsers and hand-written parsers for the grammar, and I'm sure radically different approaches are also feasable. MI neural net, anyone? - Nathan