This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH] Hooks still needed for annotations
- From: Nick Roberts <nickrob at snap dot net dot nz>
- To: Bob Rossi <bob at brasko dot net>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2005 13:19:46 +1200
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Hooks still needed for annotations
- References: <17053.24737.153388.915345@farnswood.snap.net.nz><20050601113004.GC15414@white><17054.10607.109160.333076@farnswood.snap.net.nz><20050603190856.GB32722@nevyn.them.org><17056.56022.36723.292491@farnswood.snap.net.nz><20050603235923.GA9992@nevyn.them.org><20050604130228.GA24976@white><20050613031400.GF9288@nevyn.them.org><20050701002052.GB2432@white>
Bob Rossi writes:
> > I don't much think a parser is GDB's responsibility. Offering one as a
> > convenience, sure, maybe. Note that a lot of frontends won't get to
> > use it anyway! If we ship it with GDB, then it's going to be covered
> > under the GPL.
>
> The more I think of it, the more I feel that I am correct on this. Even
> if the parser was under the GPL, proprietary projects (Apple?) could
> simply use the parse tree to translate the data into a nice format of
> there own (XML?) and then communicate that to a parser thats linked into
> there application. This type of solution would allow a closed source
> company to get the benefits of an MI parser/semantical analyzer,
> contribute to the project, and not have to think 1 second about low
> level MI stuff in there FE.
Bob,
You're quoting Daniel (I think), not me. I must say though, that I don't see
an immediate need for a parser. We can dictate the MI output. Why not just
get that to play nice?
Nick