From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5195 invoked by alias); 17 Nov 2004 16:05:41 -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 4650 invoked from network); 17 Nov 2004 16:05:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hub.ott.qnx.com) (209.226.137.76) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 17 Nov 2004 16:05:03 -0000 Received: from smtp.ott.qnx.com (smtp.ott.qnx.com [10.0.2.158]) by hub.ott.qnx.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA02101 for ; Wed, 17 Nov 2004 11:28:25 -0500 Received: (from alain@localhost) by smtp.ott.qnx.com (8.8.8/8.6.12) with UUCP id KAA17278 for gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com; Wed, 17 Nov 2004 10:14:12 -0500 Message-Id: <200411171514.KAA17278@smtp.ott.qnx.com> Subject: Re: MI handshaking To: eliz@gnu.org Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 16:05:00 -0000 From: "Alain Magloire" Cc: cagney@gnu.org (Andrew Cagney), alain@qnx.com, bob@brasko.net, nick@nick.uklinux.net, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-Reply-To: <01c4c95e$Blat.v2.2.2$f59e0820@zahav.net.il> from "Eli Zaretskii" at Nov 13, 2004 10:57:33 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-11/txt/msg00353.txt.bz2 > > > Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 17:57:30 -0500 > > From: Andrew Cagney > > Cc: Bob Rossi , Nick Roberts , > > 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 !!!