From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8007 invoked by alias); 18 Mar 2006 01:26:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 7999 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Mar 2006 01:26:47 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from viper.snap.net.nz (HELO viper.snap.net.nz) (202.37.101.8) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sat, 18 Mar 2006 01:26:45 +0000 Received: from kahikatea.snap.net.nz (p202-124-115-73.snap.net.nz [202.124.115.73]) by viper.snap.net.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id A78EF74820B; Sat, 18 Mar 2006 14:26:39 +1300 (NZDT) Received: by kahikatea.snap.net.nz (Postfix, from userid 500) id B1CE488EC; Sat, 18 Mar 2006 14:25:15 +1300 (NZDT) From: Nick Roberts MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <17435.24954.801098.804532@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2006 18:39:00 -0000 To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: MI: type prefixes for values In-Reply-To: <20060317193243.GB19068@nevyn.them.org> References: <17427.54333.236860.258115@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <20060317193243.GB19068@nevyn.them.org> Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-03/txt/msg00235.txt.bz2 > Are there any compatibility concerns, i.e. should we make this change > for mi3 only? Could some frontend rely on these outputs? I don't > think Eclipse does - it looks like it has some substantial code > to skip them, though, so at least it is aware of them. Unlike Volodya's change, its not a change in the MI protocol but one of presentation, so I would put it mi2 -i.e the curent default mi (recall that -i=mi sets mi_version to 2). I think a large project like Eclipse should follow GDB development to ensure that changes in MI that are incompatible with their use aren't made. At some stage a gdb-mi@sourceware.org mailing list might be appropriate with patches also going to gdb-patches. Since there are likely to be many more changes to MI, I suggest that when we start making changes for mi3 only, the default remains at mi2. This will allow a period of development for mi3 during which changes can be made more freely. It could then be made the default level after it has stabilised. -- Nick http://www.inet.net.nz/~nickrob