Re: [RFC] GDB interpreters

[Keith Seitz <keiths at redhat dot com>]

On Fri, 24 May 2002, Andrew Cagney wrote:

> Do you have a [working] draft?  It is hard to see how it hangs together
> with out some additional context.  Consider doing what I did and drop
> the work in progress onto a branch.

Yeah, I've got a massive set of changes that a compilation of this from
Apple and some of my own changes. (Most of my own changes are just
cosmetic: move things to separate files and whatnot. Apple crammed
everything in mi-main.c)

> The things I'm wondering about are:
>
> - how the ``struct gdb_interpreter'' gets called (can it be opaque?).
> There is a comment talking about how it is tied into the event loop.

These are completely opaque. Although Apple has a public definition of it
in interpreter.h, I was going to move it into interpreter.c. The only way
the code accessing this structure is via accessor functions
(gdb_interpreter_display_prompt, gdb_interpreter_set_quiet, etc).

> - what goes with hooks (I get the feeling that it is caught in the
> middle between ..._hook and gdb-event*)

Apple is using only hooks. It was my intent to swap it all to events, so
that all of the events/hooks are located in one place.

> Perhaphs consider a name other than interpreter.[hc].  Something to
> reflect that this isn't ``the'' interpreter but rather a part of the
> interpreters.  terps? :-^  interps?

Ok, I think that's valid: interps.h and interps.c (unless I hear
otherwise).

> > static struct gdb_interpreter *interp_list = NULL;
> > static struct gdb_interpreter *current = NULL;
>
> Suggest ``current_interpreter''.

Very good.

> > static int initialized = 0;
>
> Same.

Ok.

>
> > /* gdb_new_interpreter - This allocates space for a new interpreter,
> >  * fills the fields from the inputs, and returns a pointer to the
> >  * interpreter. */
>
> I think it is ment to be:
>
> /* .....
>     ..... */
>
> i.e. no `*' on each line.

Yes. Hmm. Does gdb_indent.sh catch this? I though I ran it on the files
before submitting them. Oh well, no matter. I'll double check for this.

Thanks for the comments.
Keith