Re: probing GDB for MI versions

['Bob Rossi' <bob at brasko dot net>]

On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 12:45:49PM -0400, Nathan J. Williams wrote:
> "'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. 

O, I see. 

It is now a formal requirement of the GDB group to have front
ends write a formal parser for each MI version and

it is also a requirement of the GDB group to have front ends write an
"utterly minimal, unintelligent parser"?

> 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.

The whole reason an MI grammar was invented was so that there were no
"utterly minimal, unintelligent parser" nonsense going on in front ends.

I am generating parsers that meet a specification. There is no way I am
interested in writing a "half-fledged" parser to parse the output of an
MI command just to figure out what "full fledged" parser I should use.

This is rediculous and I don't really even consider it an option of
debate.

Thanks,
Bob Rossi