Re: [RFC] fullname attribute for GDB/MI stack frames

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>]

On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 12:22:33PM -0400, Bob Rossi wrote:
> > As far as i understand, it is acceptable to add new fields to a stable
> > version of MI. It is the parsers responsibility to ignore MI fields that
> > they are unfamiliar with. I also understand that it is acceptable to add 
> > new commands to an MI version. Making either of the 2 changes above does 
> > not effect the version number of the MI release (AFAIK). 
> > 
> > With that said, I'm not quite sure what model Andrew had in mind
> > when releasing the MI versions. Here is 2 possibilities, 
> > 
> > Originally there is mi-. Once it becomes stable it is released as mi2-.
> > mi2- is never touched again, accept for bug fixes. All development and 
> > new features is done on mi-. When mi- becomes stable again it is turned 
> > into mi3-.
> > 
> > Originally there is mi-. Once it becomes stable it is released as mi2-.
> > Any changes compatible with the MI2 protocol should be merged into the 
> > mi- and mi2- testcases. Changes that are not compatible with mi2 should 
> > be merged into mi-. When mi- becomes stable enough it could be moved 
> > into mi3-.
> > 
> > I prefer the second model. I think it is more flexible and would allow
> > for features to get into the MI protocol faster.
> 
> Ping, any decision on this? I need to know if I should be modifing mi2
> testcases or just mi?

I had no objection to your explanation.  I thought you were just adding
the regex and I was going to update the testcases?

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC