Re: [PATCH] Hooks still needed for annotations

[Nick Roberts <nickrob@snap.net.nz>]

 > >  > > 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)
 > 
 > Sorry about the delay, here is the list of annotations I use/don't use.
 ...

Thanks

 > >  > > 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?
 > 
 > Well, it goes back to making CGDB more complicated. For example, CGDB
 > works with just about any version of GDB. (even 5-7 years old).
 > 
 > However, once you go to annotate level 3, now CGDB will have to detect
 > the version of annotations that GDB supports. This makes things
 > unnecessarily more complicated. Why not just get rid of annotate 3, and
 > slowly remove features from annotate 2?

Level 3 exists alongside level 2 and is a subset.  CGDB doesn't even have
to know about it.  I'd like to keep it for the reason I've already given
- to allow a transitions stage - it has (almost) no overhead.

 > >  > 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.
 > 
 > Well breakpoints-invalid and frames-invalid already work (kind of) in 
 > a2.  There is no reason to deprecate a2 and then get the same
 > functionality in a3. (Although I might be missing something?). I really
 > think that adding an a3 interface is a real bad idea.

Level 3 has a reduced functionality.  You've already said you think its a bad
idea, I'm trying to explain why I don't agree.  I'm not adding it, its
already there.

Nick