From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7884 invoked by alias); 6 Oct 2004 01:03:37 -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 7877 invoked from network); 6 Oct 2004 01:03:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lakermmtao02.cox.net) (68.230.240.37) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 6 Oct 2004 01:03:36 -0000 Received: from white ([68.9.64.121]) by lakermmtao02.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.03.04 201-2131-111-106-20040729) with ESMTP id <20041006010336.KYDI12444.lakermmtao02.cox.net@white>; Tue, 5 Oct 2004 21:03:36 -0400 Received: from bob by white with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CF0DP-0002rB-00; Tue, 05 Oct 2004 21:03:35 -0400 Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 01:40:00 -0000 From: Bob Rossi To: Eli Zaretskii , kettenis@gnu.org, gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: GDB/MI snapshots between major release's Message-ID: <20041006010335.GA10973@white> Mail-Followup-To: Eli Zaretskii , 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> <20041005140736.GC13586@nevyn.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20041005140736.GC13586@nevyn.them.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i X-SW-Source: 2004-10/txt/msg00103.txt.bz2 On Tue, Oct 05, 2004 at 10:07:36AM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > 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. Have we come to a resolution that a command like this is necessary? I basically need it to query GDB to determine what MI versions it officially supports. It would satisfy my needs from GDB, but what about others? Bob Rossi