From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15234 invoked by alias); 15 Oct 2004 14:56:16 -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 15155 invoked from network); 15 Oct 2004 14:56:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lakermmtao11.cox.net) (68.230.240.28) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 15 Oct 2004 14:56:10 -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 <20041015145610.GYCA5406.lakermmtao11.cox.net@white>; Fri, 15 Oct 2004 10:56:10 -0400 Received: from bob by white with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CITUz-0006dU-00; Fri, 15 Oct 2004 10:56:05 -0400 Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 15:40:00 -0000 From: 'Bob Rossi' To: Andrew Cagney Cc: Eli Zaretskii , gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: probing GDB for MI versions Message-ID: <20041015145605.GA25467@white> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Cagney , Eli Zaretskii , gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <200410071614.MAA19648@smtp.ott.qnx.com> <20041007224230.GA15177@white> <01c4ad12$Blat.v2.2.2$1796ec80@zahav.net.il> <20041009002901.GB16824@white> <20041013003135.GA22087@white> <01c4b0df$Blat.v2.2.2$e933d3e0@zahav.net.il> <20041013121412.GA22696@white> <01c4b163$Blat.v2.2.2$7d934a60@zahav.net.il> <20041014153720.GA24199@white> <416ECB29.4050201@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <416ECB29.4050201@gnu.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i X-SW-Source: 2004-10/txt/msg00326.txt.bz2 On Thu, Oct 14, 2004 at 02:53:29PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > > >>>Yes, but Andrew just told you that GDB will most probably support at > >>>most 2 MI versions: the latest one and the one before that. So > >>>printing only the last version is okay, because if that version is not > >>>supported by your front end, you need only to check the previous > >>>version. Isn't that good enough? > >>> > >>>(Even if GDB does support more than 2 MI versions, you could still > >>>probe smaller versions until you either (1) find one that is okay with > >>>your front end, or (2) get GDB to fail because the MI version you > >>>requested is not supported. > > Yes, it's good enough. Either: > > - GDB is started with -i=mi; gdb reports its version (if anything I'd be > relying on the GDB and not the MI version); your code adjusts This case does not make sense for the task I am hoping to accomplish. It does not allow the front end to figure out what tested versions of the MI protocol a particular GDB supports. The only thing this does is tell the front end what version of MI that GDB will be speaking. This is necesary but it is a different problem than I am trying to solve. If you added this to the MI protocol, which I think it should be, it still does not solve the problem of finding out what tested versions of the MI protocol GDB supports. > - GDB is started with -i=miX; gdb either barfs or soldiers on; your code > adjusts Yes, this case makes sense. I am not interested in the case were the user asks for a particular version of the MI protocol. Thanks, Bob Rossi