From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6493 invoked by alias); 4 Oct 2004 05:04:43 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 6483 invoked from network); 4 Oct 2004 05:04:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO legolas.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.24) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 4 Oct 2004 05:04:42 -0000 Received: from zaretski ([80.230.155.207]) by legolas.inter.net.il (MOS 3.5.3-GR) with ESMTP id CSY51731 (AUTH halo1); Mon, 4 Oct 2004 07:04:31 +0200 (IST) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 09:00:00 -0000 From: "Eli Zaretskii" To: Bob Rossi Message-ID: <01c4a9cf$Blat.v2.2.2$5a064020@zahav.net.il> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 CC: gdb@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <20041003170104.GC7030@white> (message from Bob Rossi on Sun, 3 Oct 2004 13:01:04 -0400) Subject: Re: probing GDB for MI versions Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <20041003170104.GC7030@white> X-SW-Source: 2004-10/txt/msg00040.txt.bz2 > Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2004 13:01:04 -0400 > From: Bob Rossi > > gdb --mi-protocols > MI1 > MI2 > MI3 > > What does everyone think? With this command, it would be safe to say > that I could always probe GDB to figure out what version of MI the front > end should use with the current GDB. If at all, I'd prefer this to be an MI command, not a command-line switch. It won't solve this problem, of course: > The only problem with this approach is that it obviously won't work for > GDB's before this command was implemented. However, in that case, the > user can either assume MI1 (if that's the only publically released > version) or they can try MI2. To solve that, a front end that is willing to support old versions of GDB will need to have a database of old GDB versions and the MI versions they supported. A front end could have this database for all versions of GDB, which is why the benefit from adding the suggested command is relatively small, IMHO.