From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5142 invoked by alias); 17 Nov 2004 16:05:33 -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 4648 invoked from network); 17 Nov 2004 16:05:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hub.ott.qnx.com) (209.226.137.76) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 17 Nov 2004 16:05:02 -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 LAA02081 for ; Wed, 17 Nov 2004 11:28:24 -0500 Received: (from alain@localhost) by smtp.ott.qnx.com (8.8.8/8.6.12) with UUCP id KAA28118 for gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com; Wed, 17 Nov 2004 10:17:57 -0500 Message-Id: <200411171517.KAA28118@smtp.ott.qnx.com> Subject: Re: MI handshaking To: bob@brasko.net (Bob Rossi) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 16:05:00 -0000 From: "Alain Magloire" Cc: eliz@gnu.org (Eli Zaretskii), cagney@gnu.org (Andrew Cagney), alain@qnx.com, nick@nick.uklinux.net, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-Reply-To: <20041113144830.GA296@white> from "Bob Rossi" at Nov 13, 2004 09:48:30 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-11/txt/msg00352.txt.bz2 > > On Sat, Nov 13, 2004 at 10:57:33AM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > > 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?) > > Yeah, anyways it doesn't really matter for now. GDB only supports one > version, and I have a feeling it will stay that way for a long time. > sigh ... sorry for being dense (hopefully this will not be a long thread) but why are you keep on saying: "GDB only supports one version" for example, I have gdb-6.1.x and I can start # gdb -i mi1 # gdb -i mi2 # gdb -i mi3 that it is more then one version?