From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31030 invoked by alias); 19 Oct 2004 20:17:03 -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 30928 invoked from network); 19 Oct 2004 20:17:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lakermmtao05.cox.net) (68.230.240.34) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 19 Oct 2004 20:17:00 -0000 Received: from white ([68.9.64.121]) by lakermmtao05.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.03.04 201-2131-111-106-20040729) with ESMTP id <20041019201658.CMIQ26541.lakermmtao05.cox.net@white>; Tue, 19 Oct 2004 16:16:58 -0400 Received: from bob by white with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CK0Pj-00085S-00; Tue, 19 Oct 2004 16:16:59 -0400 Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 21:27:00 -0000 From: Bob Rossi To: Felix Lee Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: probing GDB for MI versions Message-ID: <20041019201659.GC30345@white> Mail-Followup-To: Felix Lee , gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <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> <20041019192827.ED7CA502AD8@stray.canids> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20041019192827.ED7CA502AD8@stray.canids> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i X-SW-Source: 2004-10/txt/msg00364.txt.bz2 On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 12:28:26PM -0700, Felix Lee wrote: > Bob Rossi : > > * *requires* a restart > > there's no difference between running > gdb -print-stable-mi-version > and running > printf "quit\n" | gdb -interpreter=mi Yes, I understand, that's why it is obvious and intuitive to have a negotiation. This requires little code and is clearly an algorithmic way for the front end to get it correct each time. > > * 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. Is this a fact? That is good news and a misunderstanding on my part! > > * 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. OK, that would be good. > > * 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. > -- Thanks Felix, I'll come up with something and let you guys tear it apart! I just didn't want to start something and waste my time on it. Thanks, Bob Rossi