MI async status output

Bob Rossi bob@brasko.net
Fri Apr 18 19:27:00 GMT 2014


On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 08:42:33PM +0400, Vladimir Prus wrote:
> On 18.04.2014 20:30, Bob Rossi wrote:
> >>Though quite possibly, MI3 should just accept and produce JSON.
> >I think it would be good to have an honest discussion on this topic.
> >
> >It was really easy to write CGDB based on GDB annotations. The obvious
> >problem was that the annotations interface provides very little
> >information. So CGDB is very limited.
> >
> >In steps GDB/MI.
> >   - The GDB/MI grammar is wrong (fix it and you hit the semantic issues)
> >   - When GDB changes, how do the front ends handle the before and after?
> >     Problem: A 1 (GDB) to many (front end) relationship exists making it
> >     difficult to change or improve GDB.
> >   - How do front ends work with different versions of GDB?
> >     Problem: A 1 (front end) to many (GDB versions) relationship exists
> >     making it difficult for a front end to work well with any version of
> >     GDB. Front ends naturally suffer from a least common demoninator
> >     feature set. That is, only use the features available in most
> >     versions of GDB.
> >
> >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.

I think I spelled that out pretty clearly. The library providing the API
solves the problem, so that every implementation doesn't have to.

> >Now front ends share the benefits of a common api, rather than every
> >front end dealing uniquely with all these issues, which is unrealistic.
> >
> >Now GDB can change independent of the protocol. GDB can look at what
> >features it is affecting in the API while developing it's internal features.
> >It's a win win situation.
> >
> >The API doesn't have to be internal to GDB. It could be gdbwire, a layer
> >that sits on top of GDB. That's the goal I'm pursuing in my spare time
> >for CGDB.
> >
> >However, based on your comments about JSON, and the fact that the python
> >api is the latest development in automating GDB, I'm not even sure how
> >appropriate it is to write a front end on GDB using MI. Can anyone speak
> >to the long term viability of this protocol? I'd hate to port CGDB to
> >GDB/MI only to be told that it's been superseded by a new protocol.
> >     http://www.cygwin.com/ml/gdb/2003-02/msg00070.html
> 
> I mention JSON in part because GDB/MI grammar is rather similar to it
> already. Saying "it's just JSON" would mean GDB folks don't have to deal
> with insignificant syntax matters.

But now all N front ends need to be modified to handle mi1, mi2 or json.

> Also, it would make it rather easy
> to add a Python function callable by frontend that would output data
> frontend can parse - using JSON support in Python is way easier than
> Python binding for GDB ui_ machinery.

Agreed. I plan on wrapping gdbwire with swig to provide python api's.

In the short term, you might see some emails for me, asking about
specific oddities in the GDB/MI protocol. This will be an an effort to
provide a robust API. In the long term, we'll see how many edge case's
there really are and perhaps decide where to go from there.

Thanks!
Bob Rossi



More information about the Gdb mailing list