From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23060 invoked by alias); 4 Oct 2004 16:48:05 -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 23051 invoked from network); 4 Oct 2004 16:48:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lakermmtao11.cox.net) (68.230.240.28) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 4 Oct 2004 16:48:04 -0000 Received: from white ([68.9.64.121]) by lakermmtao11.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.03.04 201-2131-111-106-20040729) with ESMTP id <20041004164803.CIVY26386.lakermmtao11.cox.net@white>; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 12:48:03 -0400 Received: from bob by white with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CEW0J-0002FC-00; Mon, 04 Oct 2004 12:48:03 -0400 Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 17:37:00 -0000 From: Bob Rossi To: Felix Lee Cc: Eli Zaretskii , gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: GDB/MI snapshots between major release's Message-ID: <20041004164803.GG8121@white> Mail-Followup-To: Felix Lee , Eli Zaretskii , gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <20041003163918.GB7030@white> <01c4a9ce$Blat.v2.2.2$d01969a0@zahav.net.il> <20041004131906.GB8121@white> <20041004145921.BAC77502AB6@stray.canids> <20041004154928.GE8121@white> <20041004160455.DD23A502AB6@stray.canids> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20041004160455.DD23A502AB6@stray.canids> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i X-SW-Source: 2004-10/txt/msg00049.txt.bz2 On Mon, Oct 04, 2004 at 09:04:55AM -0700, Felix Lee wrote: > Bob Rossi : > > I don't know what you are talking about here. Can you see that I'm > > interested in having a new front end start any GDB with it's newest MI > > protocol? > > why isn't that possible now? what situation makes it difficult > to do that? My original posting has the problem that I am confronting, 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? With the information I have now, here is the problem. A snapshot of GDB will say that it is at MI4, although, it is really at some developmental version. So, I need to get from GDB that MI4 is not an official protocol, and that I should be using MI3 to communicate with it. This seems to be the only problem. This is why I am suggesting the new command line switch, which according to the case above, would produce, gdb --mi-protocols mi1 mi2 mi3 However, Eli suggested making an MI command that does this, that is still up for debate I guess. Thanks, Bob Rossi