From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21418 invoked by alias); 19 Oct 2004 13:28:26 -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 21392 invoked from network); 19 Oct 2004 13:28:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 19 Oct 2004 13:28:25 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.34 #1 (Debian)) id 1CJu2L-0005TE-0R; Tue, 19 Oct 2004 09:28:25 -0400 Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 14:18:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Eli Zaretskii , gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: probing GDB for MI versions Message-ID: <20041019132824.GA20954@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Eli Zaretskii , gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <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$7cb58440@zahav.net.il> <20041016154611.GA26614@white> <01c4b3a7$Blat.v2.2.2$8533eea0@zahav.net.il> <20041019131953.GA30345@white> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20041019131953.GA30345@white> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i X-SW-Source: 2004-10/txt/msg00355.txt.bz2 On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 09:19:53AM -0400, 'Bob Rossi' wrote: > Yes, I understand. > > If GDB is going to support 1 stable version of the MI protocol at a time > then just have it print the version on startup. There is no negotiation > that needs to take place. > > If GDB is going to support multiple stable versions of the MI protocol > at a time, then have it print all of the versions like you suggested. > Also, above what you suggested, I think the front end should be able to > select the version it wants from the list. Is this OK? > > I'd like to work on this patch as soon as possible, so that I can start > using it. Is the multiple stable version approach with negotiation OK? I think it's pretty clear that no one else likes the idea of negotiating. I certainly don't. I believe that printing the latest stable version of MI is plenty adequate. If the front end wants a development version of MI it can use -i=mi; if it wants the latest stable version it can use that version; if it does not recognize that version it can use the latest version it recognizes. If you encounter a situation in which that version no longer works, have it removed from GDB. -- Daniel Jacobowitz