* MI documentation
@ 2004-09-29 17:31 Bob Rossi
2004-09-30 6:36 ` Fabian Cenedese
2004-09-30 13:55 ` Eli Zaretskii
0 siblings, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Bob Rossi @ 2004-09-29 17:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gdb; +Cc: eliz, cagney, ezannoni, fnasser
Hi,
I was wondering how GDB documents the different versions of MI. For
instance, how do you know what MI commands are available with
specific versions of MI? What fields do the commands output for
specific versions? What asynchronous notifications are possibly outputted
with MI version 1,2,3?
Thanks,
Bob Rossi
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: MI documentation
2004-09-29 17:31 MI documentation Bob Rossi
@ 2004-09-30 6:36 ` Fabian Cenedese
2004-09-30 11:49 ` Bob Rossi
2004-09-30 13:55 ` Eli Zaretskii
1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Fabian Cenedese @ 2004-09-30 6:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gdb
>I was wondering how GDB documents the different versions of MI. For
>instance, how do you know what MI commands are available with
>specific versions of MI? What fields do the commands output for
>specific versions? What asynchronous notifications are possibly outputted
>with MI version 1,2,3?
I think the way to go is the probing of each needed command. If it's
available the frontend can use it, if not the frontend needs a fallback.
This is done e.g. in the remote protocol. If the vCont command is not
implemented the simpler s and c commands are used. This is somehow
similar to the MI. If the tagged commands are not implemented (older
gdb) the untagged commands can be used, even with less reliability.
So THE ONE version number is not really usefull as you also stated
earlier. But I don't know how a frontend can _ask_ what async
notifications could come.
bye Fabi
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: MI documentation
2004-09-30 6:36 ` Fabian Cenedese
@ 2004-09-30 11:49 ` Bob Rossi
2004-09-30 14:01 ` Eli Zaretskii
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Bob Rossi @ 2004-09-30 11:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Fabian Cenedese; +Cc: gdb
On Thu, Sep 30, 2004 at 08:34:58AM +0200, Fabian Cenedese wrote:
>
> >I was wondering how GDB documents the different versions of MI. For
> >instance, how do you know what MI commands are available with
> >specific versions of MI? What fields do the commands output for
> >specific versions? What asynchronous notifications are possibly outputted
> >with MI version 1,2,3?
>
> I think the way to go is the probing of each needed command. If it's
> available the frontend can use it, if not the frontend needs a fallback.
> This is done e.g. in the remote protocol. If the vCont command is not
> implemented the simpler s and c commands are used. This is somehow
> similar to the MI. If the tagged commands are not implemented (older
> gdb) the untagged commands can be used, even with less reliability.
> So THE ONE version number is not really usefull as you also stated
> earlier. But I don't know how a frontend can _ask_ what async
> notifications could come.
So that only answers what syncronous commands are avaiable with the
current version even thought the front end wouldn't know the version
number.
It still doesn't tell you the asyncronous commands like you mentioned or
the fields that are available for input commands or anything else that I
would need to know for certain versions.
I feel that knowing these things are a minimum requirement for having a
protocol between 2 processes.
Bob Rossi
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: MI documentation
2004-09-29 17:31 MI documentation Bob Rossi
2004-09-30 6:36 ` Fabian Cenedese
@ 2004-09-30 13:55 ` Eli Zaretskii
1 sibling, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Eli Zaretskii @ 2004-09-30 13:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Bob Rossi; +Cc: gdb, cagney, ezannoni, fnasser
> Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 13:31:33 -0400
> From: Bob Rossi <bob@brasko.net>
> Cc: eliz@gnu.org, cagney@redhat.com, ezannoni@redhat.com,
> fnasser@redhat.com
>
> I was wondering how GDB documents the different versions of MI. For
> instance, how do you know what MI commands are available with
> specific versions of MI?
By ``version'' do you mean version 1 vs version 2 (as in
"-interpreter=mi2"), or the MI version shipped with GDB 6.1 vs the
version shipped with GDB 6.0?
> What fields do the commands output for
> specific versions? What asynchronous notifications are possibly outputted
> with MI version 1,2,3?
That seems to say that you mean the former, but I'm still not sure.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: MI documentation
2004-09-30 11:49 ` Bob Rossi
@ 2004-09-30 14:01 ` Eli Zaretskii
2004-09-30 20:55 ` Bob Rossi
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Eli Zaretskii @ 2004-09-30 14:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Bob Rossi; +Cc: Cenedese, gdb
> Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 07:49:17 -0400
> From: Bob Rossi <bob@brasko.net>
> Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com
>
> It still doesn't tell you the asyncronous commands like you mentioned or
> the fields that are available for input commands or anything else that I
> would need to know for certain versions.
>
> I feel that knowing these things are a minimum requirement for having a
> protocol between 2 processes.
Upon thinking about this issue, I came to a conclusion that, as
surprising as it might sound, I don't understand the problem that bugs
you.
All the MI versions except the latest are kept for one reason only:
backward compatibility. So an already existing front end should use
the version it was written to support, while a new front end should
use the latest version, the one invoked by "-interpreter=mi". Doesn't
this solve the problem? If not, why not, and what solutions you can
suggest to solve that?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: MI documentation
2004-09-30 14:01 ` Eli Zaretskii
@ 2004-09-30 20:55 ` Bob Rossi
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Bob Rossi @ 2004-09-30 20:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Eli Zaretskii; +Cc: Cenedese, gdb
On Thu, Sep 30, 2004 at 03:57:31PM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 07:49:17 -0400
> > From: Bob Rossi <bob@brasko.net>
> > Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com
> >
> > It still doesn't tell you the asyncronous commands like you mentioned or
> > the fields that are available for input commands or anything else that I
> > would need to know for certain versions.
> >
> > I feel that knowing these things are a minimum requirement for having a
> > protocol between 2 processes.
>
> Upon thinking about this issue, I came to a conclusion that, as
> surprising as it might sound, I don't understand the problem that bugs
> you.
>
> All the MI versions except the latest are kept for one reason only:
> backward compatibility. So an already existing front end should use
> the version it was written to support, while a new front end should
> use the latest version, the one invoked by "-interpreter=mi". Doesn't
> this solve the problem? If not, why not, and what solutions you can
> suggest to solve that?
I guess the *real* problem is how we expect a front end and multiple
versions of GDB work together. I think there needs to be a section in the
documentation that describes backwards compatibility. For instance, I
think that a front end programmed to understand mi1 should always work
with a GDB that is capable of outputting mi1. For instance, here are
some example GDB's and MI versions for demonstration,
GDB version with MI versions
GDB 1.0 -> mi1
GDB 2.0 -> mi1,mi2
GDB 3.0 -> mi1,mi2
GDB 4.0 -> mi1,mi2,mi3
GDB 5.0 -> mi1,mi2,mi3,mi4
Front end version which understands MI version
FE 1.0 -> mi2
FE 2.0 -> mi2,mi3
FE 3.0 -> mi2,mi3,mi4
So, here is an example that I don't see to far fetched within the next
few years. The question is, what does backwards compatibility mean?
This is what I expect,
FE 1.0 or after to never work with GDB 1.0
FE 1.0 to work with GDB 2.0 on using mi2.
FE 2.0 to work with GDB 2.0 and 3.0 using mi2
and with GDB 4.0 on with mi3
FE 3.0 to work with GDB 2.0 and 3.0 using mi2
and with GDB 4.0 with mi3
and with GDB 5.0 with mi4
Is this what everyone else expects?
Thanks,
Bob Rossi
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2004-09-30 20:55 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2004-09-29 17:31 MI documentation Bob Rossi
2004-09-30 6:36 ` Fabian Cenedese
2004-09-30 11:49 ` Bob Rossi
2004-09-30 14:01 ` Eli Zaretskii
2004-09-30 20:55 ` Bob Rossi
2004-09-30 13:55 ` Eli Zaretskii
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).