From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17365 invoked by alias); 10 Jun 2005 02:26:35 -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 17298 invoked by uid 22791); 10 Jun 2005 02:26:28 -0000 Received: from lakermmtao12.cox.net (HELO lakermmtao12.cox.net) (68.230.240.27) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Fri, 10 Jun 2005 02:26:28 +0000 Received: from white ([68.9.64.121]) by lakermmtao12.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.04.00 201-2131-118-20041027) with ESMTP id <20050610022625.VMFG10612.lakermmtao12.cox.net@white>; Thu, 9 Jun 2005 22:26:25 -0400 Received: from bob by white with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1DgZE1-0001jZ-00; Thu, 09 Jun 2005 22:26:25 -0400 Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 02:26:00 -0000 From: Bob Rossi To: Nick Roberts Cc: Daniel Jacobowitz , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] Hooks still needed for annotations Message-ID: <20050610022625.GA6660@white> Mail-Followup-To: Nick Roberts , Daniel Jacobowitz , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <17053.24737.153388.915345@farnswood.snap.net.nz> <20050601113004.GC15414@white> <17054.10607.109160.333076@farnswood.snap.net.nz> <20050603190856.GB32722@nevyn.them.org> <17056.56022.36723.292491@farnswood.snap.net.nz> <20050603235923.GA9992@nevyn.them.org> <17060.50908.689915.417827@farnswood.snap.net.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <17060.50908.689915.417827@farnswood.snap.net.nz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i X-SW-Source: 2005-06/txt/msg00085.txt.bz2 On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 09:57:48AM +1200, Nick Roberts wrote: > > > They are deprecated. I believe there's a clear consensus that the > > entire annotation system is going to go, and in the near future. Just > > not yet. > > Then lets try to remove the ones that can go. In 2003 Andrew introduced > level 3 annotations as a subset of level 2 (with the markup annotations > left out). Since then I have been using those quite happily with Emacs. > > So, as far as Emacs is concerned, the annotations that are restricted to > level 2 in annotate.c, and this must be over half of them, can go. > > Bob is this also the case for CGDB? I could look and see what annotations CGDB uses. Would this be helpful? I think it's only a handful. > Emacs doesn't use breakpoints-invalid or frames-invalid either and they > spew out so often that it makes it hard to interrupt the inferior. However > I would like to keep them for the moment, as they provide clues as to where > to put code for event nortification in MI. Perhaps these could be restricted > to level 2. I still use level 2, and personally thought introducing level 3 was a really bad idea. Do you already use level 3, or could we simply just start stripping down level 2? Thanks, Bob Rossi