From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5835 invoked by alias); 2 May 2004 13:25:34 -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 5806 invoked from network); 2 May 2004 13:25:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lakermmtao06.cox.net) (68.230.240.33) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 2 May 2004 13:25:32 -0000 Received: from white ([68.9.64.121]) by lakermmtao06.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.03.02 201-2131-111-104-20040324) with ESMTP id <20040502132530.CJER19374.lakermmtao06.cox.net@white>; Sun, 2 May 2004 09:25:30 -0400 Received: from bob by white with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1BKGyJ-0000PA-00; Sun, 02 May 2004 09:25:31 -0400 Date: Sun, 02 May 2004 13:25:00 -0000 From: Bob Rossi To: Nick Roberts Cc: Andrew Cagney , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] implements MI "-file-list-exec-sections" (updated) Message-ID: <20040502132531.GB1487@white> Mail-Followup-To: Nick Roberts , Andrew Cagney , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <16530.51947.983270.138336@nick.uklinux.net> <20040501040929.GB17480@white> <16531.37648.806738.186535@nick.uklinux.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <16531.37648.806738.186535@nick.uklinux.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i X-SW-Source: 2004-05/txt/msg00045.txt.bz2 On Sat, May 01, 2004 at 01:07:44PM +0100, Nick Roberts wrote: > > > I think everyone agrees, changing the CLI would be the worst possible > > thing GDB could do. > > I'm not sure if thats true, I was just talking about timing. Its probably > not reasonable or even realistic to insist that CLI output never changes. Well, over time, I can see the CLI changing. However, I would expect that to happen after at least one open source project implemented the MI front end (Don't say eclipse, they use a hybrid approach) and the MI API was considered stable and capable of doing everything that could be done from the CLI. I don't know if this stage has been reached yet, has it? Also, is there any work done on the part of the GDB people to push the other GDB front ends into the direction of using MI? Or when we make the CLI changes, will all the other front ends just break? Bob Rossi