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

[Bob Rossi <bob@brasko.net>]

On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 12:25:44PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> 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?

O, I see. I was going to add the regex and update mi-file.exp. However,
I noticed that mi2-file.exp also had a fullname field and realized I
didn't know if the mi2 files were going to be modified.

I'm looking now, and just realized that Andrew didn't let me modify
mi2-file.exp to add -file-list-exec-source-files even though it was
compatible with the MI2 protocol. He only wanted me to add it to
mi-file.exp. So it looks like your initial idea was the philosophy 
Andrew was taking, which is: MI2 is stable and it should not be modified.
I am going to take that approach with this patch.

I really wish the MI release philosophy could be spelled out some where.
It seems as if Andrew considered MI versions to not be at the protocol 
level. For instance, MI2 and MI3 could both use the same protocol, except 
that MI3 would have more functions and fields than MI2. Does this sound 
correct to you?  This is part of the confusion I had when trying to figure 
out how GDB would handle multiple MI protocols.

Thanks,
Bob Rossi