From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10607 invoked by alias); 15 Jun 2005 21:38:21 -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 10579 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Jun 2005 21:38:17 -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; Wed, 15 Jun 2005 21:38:17 +0000 Received: from farnswood.snap.net.nz (p43-tnt2.snap.net.nz [202.124.108.43]) by viper.snap.net.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 047C1552113; Thu, 16 Jun 2005 09:38:14 +1200 (NZST) Received: by farnswood.snap.net.nz (Postfix, from userid 501) id 3DDDE62A9A; Wed, 15 Jun 2005 22:39:09 +0100 (BST) From: Nick Roberts MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <17072.40956.31718.931121@farnswood.snap.net.nz> Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 21:38:00 -0000 To: Bob Rossi Cc: Daniel Jacobowitz , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] Hooks still needed for annotations In-Reply-To: <20050615152358.GA20778@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> <17065.2154.827857.784226@farnswood.snap.net.nz> <20050615152358.GA20778@white> X-SW-Source: 2005-06/txt/msg00206.txt.bz2 > > > > 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