From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14420 invoked by alias); 27 Jul 2005 20:52:00 -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 14401 invoked by uid 22791); 27 Jul 2005 20:51:55 -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, 27 Jul 2005 20:51:55 +0000 Received: from farnswood.snap.net.nz (p176-tnt1.snap.net.nz [202.124.110.176]) by viper.snap.net.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B7945F57A0; Thu, 28 Jul 2005 08:51:51 +1200 (NZST) Received: by farnswood.snap.net.nz (Postfix, from userid 501) id 5F7D662A99; Wed, 27 Jul 2005 21:52:04 +0100 (BST) From: Nick Roberts MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <17127.62451.799405.939345@farnswood.snap.net.nz> Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 20:52:00 -0000 To: Bob Rossi Cc: Daniel Jacobowitz , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: PATCH: tests for MI commands In-Reply-To: <20050727125049.GB16612@white> References: <17117.55351.716393.763492@farnswood.snap.net.nz> <20050724211946.GB798@nevyn.them.org> <17126.51233.887175.402254@farnswood.snap.net.nz> <20050727002721.GA27261@nevyn.them.org> <17126.62115.642102.742744@farnswood.snap.net.nz> <20050727035503.GA30670@nevyn.them.org> <17127.29797.456624.592127@farnswood.snap.net.nz> <20050727125049.GB16612@white> X-SW-Source: 2005-07/txt/msg00209.txt.bz2 > Nick, I don't fully agree that the mi2- tests serve no useful purpose. > The mi2- tests make sure that the MI2 protocol is completly tested (MI2 > works no less then what the mi2- tests say they do), and the mi- tests > make sure that the current development MI protocol is being tested. I > think it's important to keep both tests for this reason. Do you still > think they should be removed after this explanation? I think that we should either remove them (my preference) or rewrite parts of GDB so that the different MI levels act as independent interpreters (which currently I am certainly not going to offer to do). If they were independent then clearly changing the behaviour of the current level, as I have just done, wouldn't break the tests for level 2. > For instance, it's possible that a command works differently between the > 2 versions (don't know if this currently even happens). There is very little difference between -i=mi and -i=mi2. The format of the prologue that GDB prints out is one example. This is a nonsense to pretend that we are supporting different levels. MI has been a project in progress for five years now. While companies might support backend development to port GDB to different architectures, presumably frontend development gets less support. I think we need to be realistic, supporting one level properly is an ambitious target. Nick