This is the mail archive of the
gdb@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
RE: MI async status output
- From: "Terekhov, Mikhail" <mikhail dot terekhov at emc dot com>
- To: "gdb at sourceware dot org" <gdb at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2014 15:27:03 -0400
- Subject: RE: MI async status output
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20140409210803 dot GA3166 at linux> <5346B226 dot 40209 at cs dot msu dot su> <20140410201259 dot GA15060 at linux> <5347BD84 dot 5030200 at broadcom dot com> <20140412002538 dot GA27657 at linux> <5350E049 dot 9070705 at codesourcery dot com> <20140418104619 dot GA26892 at linux> <53512470 dot 8080305 at codesourcery dot com> <20140418163002 dot GA29631 at linux> <535155F9 dot 3030405 at codesourcery dot com>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gdb-owner@sourceware.org [mailto:gdb-owner@sourceware.org] On
> Behalf Of Vladimir Prus
> Sent: Friday, April 18, 2014 12:43 PM
> To: Bob Rossi
> Cc: Andrew Burgess; gdb@sourceware.org
> Subject: Re: MI async status output
>
> On 18.04.2014 20:30, Bob Rossi wrote:
> >
> > The solution to these problems is pretty clear, lets give developers an API.
>
> I am not sure what's different between "API" and GDB/MI, which is also an
> API or some sort. No matter what a new API might be, the problems of GDB
> changes and supporting multiple versions of GDB will be the same, except for
> wrong grammar. Web developers have the same problems with API changes,
> for all I know.
>
The difference is very important - in case of grammar the only way to verify that GDB
really follows it is to write and maintain complete set of test cases while in case of API
compiler will do it for you automatically. The situation with MI clearly shows that and
JSON will be no different in this regard. That doesn't mean that there is no need to
verify that this API works correctly of course :}
Regards,
Mikhail