From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1163 invoked by alias); 16 Oct 2004 15:46:14 -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 1142 invoked from network); 16 Oct 2004 15:46:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lakermmtao12.cox.net) (68.230.240.27) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 16 Oct 2004 15:46:12 -0000 Received: from white ([68.9.64.121]) by lakermmtao12.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.03.04 201-2131-111-106-20040729) with ESMTP id <20041016154611.NKVI13338.lakermmtao12.cox.net@white>; Sat, 16 Oct 2004 11:46:11 -0400 Received: from bob by white with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CIql1-0006vg-00; Sat, 16 Oct 2004 11:46:11 -0400 Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 21:56:00 -0000 From: 'Bob Rossi' To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: probing GDB for MI versions Message-ID: <20041016154611.GA26614@white> Mail-Followup-To: Eli Zaretskii , gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <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$7d934a60@zahav.net.il> <20041014153720.GA24199@white> <01c4b233$Blat.v2.2.2$873cc700@zahav.net.il> <20041015154016.GB25467@white> <01c4b376$Blat.v2.2.2$7cb58440@zahav.net.il> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <01c4b376$Blat.v2.2.2$7cb58440@zahav.net.il> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i X-SW-Source: 2004-10/txt/msg00340.txt.bz2 > > I don't want a reasonably well working verion, I want a version that > > it tested in the testsuite. > > Then you must make sure your front end supports the latest stable > version, and only that version, and this whole discussion is mostly > irrelevant, because just printing the latest stable version is all you > need (if the front end doesn't support that version, it should refuse > to work). See below. OK, here's where I think you and I are not on the same level. This is the fundamental problem in our discussion and why we can not agree on a solution. Please correct me if I'm wrong here. You think that GDB does and will only test one version of the MI protocol. If this is true, then I would be happy to implement your solution of printing the latest stable version and starting that version with -i=mi. This conversation could be over with :) However, as far as I understand it, this is not true. GDB has, and in the future could be shipped with several versions of the MI protocol being tested. Here is the question and answer I got from Andrew, * Will GDB support more than one stable MI protocols for an official release? In the past GDB tested both mi1 and mi2 so that that stage they were probably described as "supported". Now that only mi2 is tested, nad mi1 is deprecated, your call. With this in mind, I do not think it is OK to print the latest stable version only. It does not tell the front end what other versions could be stable. In order for a front end to determine the protocol to use, it needs a list of all the tested MI protocols. After that, selecting the appropriate protocol seems like a nice thing to allow front ends to do, thus not having to restart GDB. This seems like a natural extension to the MI protocol and IMHO should have been around from the start. If there indeed is more than one tested version of the MI protocol, would you agree to me implementing the handshaking protocol? or are you against that either way? > > This solution is lacking. It only tells the front end the latest > > stable version of the MI protocol. The front end can only guess what > > other stable versions are available and I consider this unacceptable. > > According to what Andrew said, and since you don't want to use > untested old versions, the latest stable version is all you need. I posted the Q/A above that makes me think that what you are saying here is not correct. However, please do correct me if I'm wrong. Thanks for your time, Bob Rossi