From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-return-19843-listarch-gdb=sources.redhat.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 21504 invoked by alias); 8 Oct 2004 22:10:29 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 21486 invoked from network); 8 Oct 2004 22:10:28 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO lakermmtao02.cox.net) (68.230.240.37)
  by sourceware.org with SMTP; 8 Oct 2004 22:10:28 -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 <20041008221026.GVJW27002.lakermmtao02.cox.net@white>;
          Fri, 8 Oct 2004 18:10:26 -0400
Received: from bob by white with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian))
	id 1CG2wV-0004Np-00; Fri, 08 Oct 2004 18:10:27 -0400
Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 04:06:00 -0000
From: Bob Rossi <bob@brasko.net>
To: Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org>
Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>, Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>,
	gdb@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: Bob's MI objective
Message-ID: <20041008221026.GA16824@white>
Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org>,
	Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>, Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>,
	gdb@sources.redhat.com
References: <416451B0.3060306@gnu.org> <20041006212652.GB13271@white> <20041008023243.GA15320@white> <01c4ad2b$Blat.v2.2.2$f25b86a0@zahav.net.il> <20041008134218.GA1467@nevyn.them.org> <01c4ad53$Blat.v2.2.2$750a0be0@zahav.net.il> <4167081A.3020306@gnu.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4167081A.3020306@gnu.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i
X-SW-Source: 2004-10/txt/msg00270.txt.bz2

On Fri, Oct 08, 2004 at 05:35:22PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> @samp{--interpreter=mi} (or @samp{--interpreter=mi2}) causes
> @value{GDBN} to use the @dfn{@sc{gdb/mi} interface} (@pxref{GDB/MI, ,
> The @sc{gdb/mi} Interface}) included since @var{GDBN} version 6.0.  The
> previous @sc{gdb/mi} interface, included in @value{GDBN} version 5.3 and
> selected with @samp{--interpreter=mi1}, is deprecated.  Earlier
> @sc{gdb/mi} interfaces are no longer supported.

This is basically what I need to know. I've asked several times and
would very much appreciate an answer from the people that are capable of
giving it. (The answer could be a simple yes or no)

   * Will GDB support at least one stable MI protocol for an official release?
   (This answer is obviously "yes", and does not have to be answered)
   * Will GDB support more than one stable MI protocols for an official release?
   * Will GDB support one stable MI protocol for a CVS snapshot?
   * Will GDB support more than one stable MI protocols for a CVS snapshot?

BTW, The word "will" means that even if GDB supports only 1 official protocol currently, 
what about in the future?

These questions are a prerequisite in determining how my front end will
be able to interface with GDB. They are also a prerequisite to solving the
MI handshaking problem.

Thanks,
Bob Rossi