From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22969 invoked by alias); 19 Oct 2004 19:28:31 -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 22961 invoked from network); 19 Oct 2004 19:28:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO capitol.mail.pas.earthlink.net) (207.217.120.180) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 19 Oct 2004 19:28:30 -0000 Received: from ip216-26-76-19.dsl.du.teleport.com ([216.26.76.19] helo=stray.canids) by capitol.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 1CJzen-00055Z-00 for gdb@sources.redhat.com; Tue, 19 Oct 2004 12:28:30 -0700 Received: from stray.canids (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by stray.canids (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED7CA502AD8 for ; Tue, 19 Oct 2004 12:28:26 -0700 (PDT) From: Felix Lee To: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: probing GDB for MI versions References: <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> <20041019132824.GA20954@nevyn.them.org> <20041019135137.GB30345@white> In-Reply-To: <20041019135137.GB30345@white> on Tue, 19 Oct 2004 09:51:37 EDT from Bob Rossi Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 20:13:00 -0000 Message-Id: <20041019192827.ED7CA502AD8@stray.canids> X-SW-Source: 2004-10/txt/msg00360.txt.bz2 Bob Rossi : > * *requires* a restart there's no difference between running gdb -print-stable-mi-version and running printf "quit\n" | gdb -interpreter=mi > * requires printing the latest stable version even though GDB may not be > even speaking that version 'gdb -interpreter=mi' should start the latest stable version, not the latest version. so if mi5 is stable and mi6 is unstable, you'd have to say '-interpreter=mi6' to get the unstable version. > * says *nothing* about other versions that GDB supports so print a list of versions. this was already mentioned a couple times. there's no difference between running gdb -print-all-mi-versions and running printf "info mi\nquit\n" | gdb -interpreter=mi > * gives no way for a front end to determine if it is using a > deprecated protocol. this can be information in the list of versions. > * puts the bug finding of the MI protocol on the users, even though the > protocols have been deprecated. this is a problem everywhere and difficult to solve in general. the first thought most people will have is "maybe it's fixed in a newer version", and it's pretty easy to try a newer gdb version. also, assume that anyone who knows how to use gdb also knows how to search for an answer with Google and/or file a bug report. Bob, I think this discussion would have been finished a long time ago if you had just submitted a patch for gdb that did what you wanted. the first attempt might get some discussion and need some modification before getting accepted, but that usually doesn't take very long. most of this argument has been about people saying basically, "well, if I were doing it, I'd do it differently", which is just quibbling for an issue as simple as this. gdb, like most volunteer projects, never has enough manpower to do everything that "should" be done. development is always about evolution in response to demand. the project is the sum of what people care about, and you care the most about this issue. any patch you submit has an automatic advantage over everyone else's lack of interest in working on this issue, and the gdb people are usually happy to incorporate anything that isn't egregiously bad. --