From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12493 invoked by alias); 10 Jun 2005 03:25:13 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 12439 invoked by uid 22791); 10 Jun 2005 03:25:09 -0000 Received: from viper.snap.net.nz (HELO viper.snap.net.nz) (202.37.101.8) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Fri, 10 Jun 2005 03:25:09 +0000 Received: from farnswood.snap.net.nz (p89-tnt2.snap.net.nz [202.124.108.89]) by viper.snap.net.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1549353AAB8; Fri, 10 Jun 2005 15:25:04 +1200 (NZST) Received: by farnswood.snap.net.nz (Postfix, from userid 501) id 927BB62A99; Fri, 10 Jun 2005 04:26:35 +0100 (BST) From: Nick Roberts MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <17065.2154.827857.784226@farnswood.snap.net.nz> Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 03:25:00 -0000 To: Bob Rossi Cc: Daniel Jacobowitz , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] Hooks still needed for annotations In-Reply-To: <20050610022625.GA6660@white> References: <17053.24737.153388.915345@farnswood.snap.net.nz> <20050601113004.GC15414@white> <17054.10607.109160.333076@farnswood.snap.net.nz> <20050603190856.GB32722@nevyn.them.org> <17056.56022.36723.292491@farnswood.snap.net.nz> <20050603235923.GA9992@nevyn.them.org> <17060.50908.689915.417827@farnswood.snap.net.nz> <20050610022625.GA6660@white> X-SW-Source: 2005-06/txt/msg00087.txt.bz2 Bob Rossi writes: > On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 09:57:48AM +1200, Nick Roberts wrote: > > > > > They are deprecated. I believe there's a clear consensus that the > > > entire annotation system is going to go, and in the near future. Just > > > not yet. > > > > Then lets try to remove the ones that can go. In 2003 Andrew introduced > > level 3 annotations as a subset of level 2 (with the markup annotations > > left out). Since then I have been using those quite happily with Emacs. > > > > So, as far as Emacs is concerned, the annotations that are restricted to > > level 2 in annotate.c, and this must be over half of them, can go. > > > > Bob is this also the case for CGDB? > > I could look and see what annotations CGDB uses. Would this be helpful? > I think it's only a handful. Well there hasn't been any interest shown from the global maintainers, but I think it would be helpful. Do you need any of the annotations that are not generated by level 3 annotations? (Specified by if (annotation_level == 2)... in annotate.c) > > Emacs doesn't use breakpoints-invalid or frames-invalid either and they > > spew out so often that it makes it hard to interrupt the inferior. However > > I would like to keep them for the moment, as they provide clues as to where > > to put code for event nortification in MI. Perhaps these could be restricted > > to level 2. > > I still use level 2, and personally thought introducing level 3 was a > really bad idea. Why is it a bad idea? > Do you already use level 3, or could we simply just start stripping down > level 2? Keeping level 3 allows a transition stage, I would now like to use it for breakpoints-invalid and frames-invalid as stated above, in case I suddenly find that Emacs does need them. Nick