Re: Formatting of function pointer value

[Nick Roberts <nickrob at snap dot net dot nz>]

 > > CLI output is intended for the user.  It can change with a new release,
 > > and on the state of execution in ways which are not easy to anticipate
 > > without reading the source code.  Provided that it still makes sense,
 > > that is not a problem to the user but it can be to a frontend, if it is
 > > trying to parse the output in a very precise manner.  MI has a more
 > > formal syntax and so is not as variable.  Once it is fully developed,
 > 
 > So it's not stable yet?

The manual says:

   Note that GDB/MI is still under construction, so some of the
features described below are incomplete and subject to change.

 > > its output should be stable and if 
 > > it does change, some backward compatibility will probably be maintained.
 > 
 > Ok, the the only advantage of MI is stable output format. 

I've not said that.  It also uses variable objects, it aims to be
asynchronous...

> Can you tell me how it's achieved?

As I've already said, it has a more formal syntax.

 > For example, looking at the code that prints function values (what worries
 > me in the first place):
 > 
 >    fprintf_filtered (stream, "{");
 >    type_print (type, "", stream, -1);
 >    fprintf_filtered (stream, "} ");

I don't understand the point of the example.

 > As I right in assuming that exactly the same output will be produced for MI
 > mode and for CLI mode?

No, you're wrong to assume that.  That should be clear from the examples
in the manual.

Nick

 > If so, then how MI can be more stable than CLI, if the output is the same?