From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28397 invoked by alias); 6 Oct 2004 19:53:44 -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 28164 invoked from network); 6 Oct 2004 19:53:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hub.ott.qnx.com) (209.226.137.76) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 6 Oct 2004 19:53:42 -0000 Received: from smtp.ott.qnx.com (smtp.ott.qnx.com [10.0.2.158]) by hub.ott.qnx.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA12908 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 2004 15:48:45 -0400 Received: (from alain@localhost) by smtp.ott.qnx.com (8.8.8/8.6.12) with UUCP id PAA06272 for gdb@sources.redhat.com; Wed, 6 Oct 2004 15:53:41 -0400 Message-Id: <200410061953.PAA06272@smtp.ott.qnx.com> Subject: Re: probing GDB for MI versions To: gdb@sources.redhat.com Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 20:10:00 -0000 From: "Alain Magloire" In-Reply-To: <20041006191950.GP12213@white> from "Bob Rossi" at Oct 06, 2004 03:19:50 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-10/txt/msg00184.txt.bz2 > > On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 03:09:58PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > > If a current GDB were modified to list mi "versions" then it would only > > print mi2, which is the version selected by -i=mi. If your front end > > specifies -i=mi1 then you're on your own - it's not tested - it doesn't > > work. > > WHAT?!? This is what I have been asking all along? It was the foundation > to this conversation. Where were you to inform everyone of this? > But I think that was the folks been saying. If you choose a specific version to start gdb in your front-end say, "-i=mi1" why do you care later to know about "mi2" or "mix" ? If you start with "-i=mi", it will be handy to know which mi level, in this case the front-end can take appropriate action or restart trying a known version "-i=mi1" Am I missing something here ? I'm curious to understand why you reject the others propositions as inadequate. > Are you saying that old versions of MI are not supported by GDB? Only > the last official release of the MI protocol is supported and that no > other versions that it used to speak with are supported or tested? > how did you manage to come up with such conclusions ? -- alain