From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1224 invoked by alias); 5 Oct 2004 14:07:41 -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 964 invoked from network); 5 Oct 2004 14:07:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 5 Oct 2004 14:07:37 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.34 #1 (Debian)) id 1CEpya-0003bM-8P; Tue, 05 Oct 2004 10:07:36 -0400 Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 14:18:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: Bob Rossi , kettenis@gnu.org, gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: GDB/MI snapshots between major release's Message-ID: <20041005140736.GC13586@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Eli Zaretskii , Bob Rossi , kettenis@gnu.org, gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <20041003163918.GB7030@white> <01c4a9ce$Blat.v2.2.2$d01969a0@zahav.net.il> <20041004131906.GB8121@white> <200410041533.i94FXsPa014648@juw15.nfra.nl> <20041004155805.GF8121@white> <01c4aabb$Blat.v2.2.2$e64c8fc0@zahav.net.il> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <01c4aabb$Blat.v2.2.2$e64c8fc0@zahav.net.il> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i X-SW-Source: 2004-10/txt/msg00090.txt.bz2 On Tue, Oct 05, 2004 at 11:14:44AM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 11:58:05 -0400 > > From: Bob Rossi > > Cc: eliz@gnu.org, gdb@sources.redhat.com > > > > OK, this is good news. So basically, even thought the MI version is > > bumped it is still not official. Meaning, at that point, if I updated my > > front end to be compatible with the new MI protocol version, there could > > still be another incompatible change before the release. Meaning, I > > would have to wait for the release to get the use out of that new > > version. This is OK with me as long as, > > > > - I can have the --mi-protocols command line switch that tells me > > what version of GDB/MI protocol is officially supported. > > > > - This command line switch only has MI protocols added to it when the > > MI protocols become official ( for a release ) > > We could do that, but I still think an MI command is a better vehicle > for such a feature. I think using a command line switch makes sense. You're going to have to restart GDB to change MI protocols anyway, so why force the user to go into MI? I also like the idea of listing non-MI (which right now means annotate) protocols in the same output. -- Daniel Jacobowitz