From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18675 invoked by alias); 3 Oct 2004 16:39:21 -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 18664 invoked from network); 3 Oct 2004 16:39:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lakermmtao03.cox.net) (68.230.240.36) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 3 Oct 2004 16:39:19 -0000 Received: from white ([68.9.64.121]) by lakermmtao03.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.03.04 201-2131-111-106-20040729) with ESMTP id <20041003163919.KHWL2762.lakermmtao03.cox.net@white> for ; Sun, 3 Oct 2004 12:39:19 -0400 Received: from bob by white with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CE9OI-0001qW-00 for ; Sun, 03 Oct 2004 12:39:18 -0400 Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 17:01:00 -0000 From: Bob Rossi To: GDB Subject: GDB/MI snapshots between major release's Message-ID: <20041003163918.GB7030@white> Mail-Followup-To: GDB Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i X-SW-Source: 2004-10/txt/msg00027.txt.bz2 Hi, To make things simple, I am separating some of my questions out into several threads as Eli suggested. There are only a few, and I hope they are not to annoying. How should front end developers deal with snapshots of GDB, that are taken between major versions of GDB. Several distributions do this and I don't think most front end's would be capable of dealing with a GDB in this state. In this state, GDB says it is MI3 but outputs commands in the MI4 style (because version hasn't been bumped yet) or vice versa. Does this even happen? Here is my take, since Eli stated that MI is backwards compatible, I think the version number should be bumped right before the release. This way, any snapshot of GDB will get the last major version of the MI protocol that was publically released and supported. Does this sound correct? Thanks, Bob Rossi