From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32461 invoked by alias); 16 Feb 2004 23:41:52 -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 32454 invoked from network); 16 Feb 2004 23:41:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lakemtao01.cox.net) (68.1.17.244) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 16 Feb 2004 23:41:51 -0000 Received: from white ([68.9.64.121]) by lakemtao01.cox.net (InterMail vM.5.01.06.05 201-253-122-130-105-20030824) with ESMTP id <20040216234152.LZAQ13731.lakemtao01.cox.net@white> for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 18:41:52 -0500 Received: from bob by white with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1AssN5-0001Ib-00 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 18:41:51 -0500 Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 23:41:00 -0000 From: Bob Rossi To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [rfa:doco] Zap mi1 reference Message-ID: <20040216234151.GA4921@white> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <402D2DF2.8030001@gnu.org> <20040213203704.GA654@white> <403151D2.1060908@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <403151D2.1060908@gnu.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i X-SW-Source: 2004-02/txt/msg00451.txt.bz2 On Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 06:27:14PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote: > >On Fri, Feb 13, 2004 at 03:05:06PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote: > > > >>Hello, > >> > >>This removes a reference to "mi1" in the documentation. It's no longer > >>tested (hence 'supported'). > > > >I think the MI functions should be backwards compatible. Are they? > > Theory or reality? In theory the output is largely upward compatible - > code can discard unrecognized fields. In reality warts eventually start > to appear. For instance, both: In reality, I don't think front end writers will want to continually depend on writing new MI interface layers in order to keep compatibility with GDB. As a front end writer, and as being interested in writing a thin layer on top of MI, I am concerned with backwards compatibility. I wrote an annotate-2 module that plugs into libtgdb. I wrote it using gdb.5.3, however, it seems to work perfectly with versions of gdb as old as 4.x. I am interested in seeing the same compatibility with MI. If I was to write an MI module for libtgdb, do you see that working for only gdb 6.0? Would I then have to write a MI2 module for 6.1? I would hope that my MI1 library would work with both GDB 6.0,6.1. Is this a quality the MI protocol is going to sustain? and that an MI2 module would only allow for more functionality, or more of something. > - using frame ID's with varobj > - N:M breakpoints > will impact significantly on the MI interface. Will this break all MI1 front end clients? Bob Rossi