From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21546 invoked by alias); 27 Jan 2006 15:12:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 21537 invoked by uid 22791); 27 Jan 2006 15:12:27 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31.1) with ESMTP; Fri, 27 Jan 2006 15:12:23 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1F2VGu-0000HA-Qw for gdb@sourceware.org; Fri, 27 Jan 2006 10:12:20 -0500 Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 15:48:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: MI -break-info command issues Message-ID: <20060127151220.GA978@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb@sourceware.org References: <200601271115.22939.ghost@cs.msu.su> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-01/txt/msg00296.txt.bz2 On Fri, Jan 27, 2006 at 05:59:56PM +0300, Vladimir Prus wrote: > If "minimal" protocol is explicitly not a goal of MI, or changing MI is > prohibited, just say so and I'll stop asking why there are unnecessary > fields. _Extending_ MI is fine; it was designed to be extensible. _Removing_ fields from MI is not fine, because you don't know if some other frontend relies on the data that you find superfluous. Folks have said this at least twice in this thread already. If you disagree, could you say why? -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery