Re: MI handshaking

["Alain Magloire" <alain@qnx.com>]

> 
> > Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 17:57:30 -0500
> > From: Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org>
> > Cc: Bob Rossi <bob@brasko.net>, Nick Roberts <nick@nick.uklinux.net>,
> >         gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
> > 
> > > =mi-handshake,versions=[mi1,mi2,mi3],stable=[mi2]
> > 
> > Yes, thanks for the correction with ``=''.   But not 
> > ``versions=[mi1,mi2,mi3]'' that's too much and misleading information.
> > 
> > I think the objective here needs to be to provide as much information as 
> > possible about what version of GDB and MI is running.  Hence the:
> > 
> > 	version="mi2"
> > 
> > (where hopefully VERSION version is a member of STABLE :-)
> 
> We've been through this discussion, and the only suggestion that
> brought a consensus was to print all the supported MI versions, not
> just one.  Let's not reopen that discussion again, even if the result
> looks ``too much and misleading''.  (Why ``misleading'', btw?)
> 
> > although strictly speaking it should probably be:
> > 
> > 	mi-version="mi2"
> 
> Yes, mi-version is better, IMO.
> 

Right 8-).

But it would also be nice to have a command that would show this 
information.  It will bring symmetry/consistency:
- If you want to see the information again, then the only
  would be to kill gdb and restart again ?

- Most of the information in the prologue blurb can be retrieve:
   show version
   show annotate
   show copying
   show warranty
  Why would the mi-version be different ?

- It would be a big advantage to a frontend  ... well at least to me 8-)
  In our case, we do not necessarly spawn gdb, the process is spawn
  by a delegate.  For now I can just rely on smart guesses:
   --interpreter-exec console "echo"  --> working good that means mi2 and above
  no fun and easy to get wrong.


-- 
au revoir, alain
----
Aussi haut que l'on soit assis, on est toujours assis que sur son cul !!!