From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1589 invoked by alias); 13 Oct 2004 00:31:38 -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 1570 invoked from network); 13 Oct 2004 00:31:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lakermmtao02.cox.net) (68.230.240.37) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 13 Oct 2004 00:31:36 -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 <20041013003134.CSOD27002.lakermmtao02.cox.net@white>; Tue, 12 Oct 2004 20:31:34 -0400 Received: from bob by white with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CHX3H-0005kQ-00; Tue, 12 Oct 2004 20:31:35 -0400 Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 12:14:00 -0000 From: 'Bob Rossi' To: Eli Zaretskii , gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: probing GDB for MI versions Message-ID: <20041013003135.GA22087@white> Mail-Followup-To: Eli Zaretskii , gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <20041007145511.GA14573@white> <200410071614.MAA19648@smtp.ott.qnx.com> <20041007224230.GA15177@white> <01c4ad12$Blat.v2.2.2$1796ec80@zahav.net.il> <20041009002901.GB16824@white> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20041009002901.GB16824@white> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i X-SW-Source: 2004-10/txt/msg00300.txt.bz2 On Fri, Oct 08, 2004 at 08:29:01PM -0400, 'Bob Rossi' wrote: > On Fri, Oct 08, 2004 at 10:36:45AM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > > Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 18:42:30 -0400 > > > From: 'Bob Rossi' > > > Cc: Dave Korn , gdb@sources.redhat.com > > > > > > * Have GDB output it's last stable version of MI as the first thing > > > it outputs (subset of case above) > > > > Will this solution be satisfactory for you? That is, when invoked > > with the -interpreter=mi command-line switch, GDB will print the > > last stable version of the MI protocol it supports. This is actually > > the way many protocol negotiations start, and I don't see why we > > shouldn't behave the same. > > > > Note that a front end which wants to support older GDB versions will > > need to have a database of MI versions referenced by GDB versions, > > because the old GDB versions will not print the MI version. > > > > Are there any disadvantages to this solution? > > Sorry for the delay, I am waiting on the answer for these questions > http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb/2004-10/msg00267.html > before I can say if this will be OK for me. Let's start smaller, everyone seems to be happy with the handshaking idea. Any objections? With this idea there are 2 alternatives I can think of. * put the handshaking under a different interpreter (-i=mi-handshake) * integrate the handshaking as part of the MI protocol (version 3 and on) I kind of prefer having to call the mi-handshake interpreter explicitly, and not making it part of the MI protocol. This way, if a front end wants to start mi3 or any other protocol, they can explicitly state it. For example, gdb -i=mi3 will start MI protocol version 3 like it always has. There should be no handshaking involved if the front end selects a specific version. If a front end wants to go into handshaking mode to select a protocol, it can explicitly ask to do so. (gdb -i=mi-handshake) This is the solution to the problem that I would like to implement, any objections? Thanks, Bob Rossi