From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nick Roberts To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: Andrew Cagney , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [Commit] New file Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 19:52:00 -0000 Message-id: <16567.38968.219077.271649@nick.uklinux.net> References: <16563.42891.155614.609433@nick.uklinux.net> <6654-Wed26May2004124733+0300-eliz@gnu.org> <40B4C9A9.3040904@gnu.org> <6137-Thu27May2004102142+0300-eliz@gnu.org> <40B63FED.7080502@gnu.org> <6654-Fri28May2004105116+0300-eliz@gnu.org> X-SW-Source: 2004-05/msg00770.html > The situation I fear is that the latest gdb-mi.el will not work with a > recent Emacs release. We already had that with gdba.el, remember? Sure, it will be difficult to keep everything in sync but I think that if you note the similarities between gdb-mi.el to gdba.el it is also important to note the differences. Unlike you, I don't have the benefit of first hand experience but this is what I have inferred. gdba.el was written by Tom Lord and Jim Kingdon (both then at Cygnus) and was based on a very early version of gud.el which, in turn, was written by Eric Raymond and modified by others. As far as I can see, there was no communication between the original two parties, and those Emacs developers either did not know about level 2 annotations or chose not to use them. So could gdba.el could be called a fork. That is not the intention with gdb-mi.el, indeed the reverse is true, it is trying to pull things together. Nick