This is the mail archive of the gdb@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the GDB project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: probing GDB for MI versions

From: "Nathan J. Williams" <nathanw at wasabisystems dot com>
To: "'Bob Rossi'" <bob at brasko dot net>
Cc: Dave Korn <dk at artimi dot com>, "'Eli Zaretskii'" <eliz at gnu dot org>, gdb at sources dot redhat dot com
Date: 06 Oct 2004 12:45:49 -0400
Subject: Re: probing GDB for MI versions
Organization: Wasabi Systems, Inc.
References: <20041006113916.GC11747@white><NUTMEGYbiHySfQaNHux000002af@NUTMEG.CAM.ARTIMI.COM><20041006162225.GA12213@white>

"'Bob Rossi'" <bob@brasko.net> writes:

> It is not possible to understand the output of the command no matter how
> simple it is. If there is no parse tree, then there is no way to
> understand the output from GDB.

You have constrained yourself to using a formal parser for absolutely
all interaction with GDB output. This constraint is unnecessary. The
suggestions in this thread are "start gdb, hand-check the result from
this particular minimal command, and *then* fire up the full-fledged,
grammar-generated parser, selecting appropriately for the version".

Perhaps you can explain why you feel this constraint to be necessary,
since that appears to be the real point of contention.

        - Nathan

Follow-Ups:
- Re: probing GDB for MI versions
  - From: 'Bob Rossi'

References:
- Re: probing GDB for MI versions
  - From: Bob Rossi
- RE: probing GDB for MI versions
  - From: Dave Korn
- Re: probing GDB for MI versions
  - From: 'Bob Rossi'

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]