From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31691 invoked by alias); 7 Oct 2004 14:55:14 -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 31672 invoked from network); 7 Oct 2004 14:55:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lakermmtao11.cox.net) (68.230.240.28) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 7 Oct 2004 14:55:12 -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 <20041007145511.UIPB5156.lakermmtao11.cox.net@white>; Thu, 7 Oct 2004 10:55:11 -0400 Received: from bob by white with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CFZfj-0003nj-00; Thu, 07 Oct 2004 10:55:11 -0400 Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 15:49:00 -0000 From: 'Bob Rossi' To: Dave Korn Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: probing GDB for MI versions Message-ID: <20041007145511.GA14573@white> Mail-Followup-To: Dave Korn , gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <20041007143716.GB14402@white> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i X-SW-Source: 2004-10/txt/msg00216.txt.bz2 On Thu, Oct 07, 2004 at 03:50:18PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: 'Bob Rossi' > > Sent: 07 October 2004 15:37 > > > I understand that adding an MI command to the MI function set that can > > not be accessed by a front end that understands the MI protocol is > > nonsensical and confusing > > Since nobody has proposed such an addition, your opinion of it is utterly > irrelevant. Again, you do not understand the issue. Adding this new function -mi-version, will be adding the first command to the MI command set that is supposed to be used by a front end by *not* using an MI protocol. It is confusing and non-sensical to add the first MI command to the MI command set that can not be used by a front end that speaks the MI protocol. Thanks, Bob Rossi