On 02/10/2015 07:57 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 00:30:03 -0800 >> From: Daniel Colascione >> CC: esr@snark.thyrsus.com, stephen@xemacs.org, rms@gnu.org, >> emacs-devel@gnu.org >> >>>> No, actually. Because the rest of the compiler wasn't intentionally >>>> made non-modular, it was possible for the LLDB team to re-use the >>>> code from the rest of the toolchain. LLDB doesn't need things like its >>>> own expression parsing and interpretation code because it can call >>>> into Clang/LLVM at will. >>> >>> Parsing source-code expression is a very small part of what GDB does. >>> So this is a red herring. >> >> It's also one of the most frustrating parts of GDB. > > I guess we have very different GDB experiences and/or needs, if this > is a significant issue for you. I almost never need to type complex > source-level expressions into a debugger. The reason is simple: > almost every interesting value is already assigned to some variable, > so most expressions I type are simple references to variables. > If you want to explore a complex data structure, you should use Python > or Guile scripting anyway. That scripting is still incomplete. See https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2014-10/msg00102.html, where I try to fix it to some extent. At least IME, sooner or later, when scripting GDB, you fall down to issuing textual commands and parsing their textual output.