Re: [PATCH] Hooks still needed for annotations

[Bob Rossi <bob@brasko.net>]

On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 09:39:08AM +1200, Nick Roberts wrote:
>  > >  > > 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.
>  > > 
>  > > Well there hasn't been any interest shown from the global maintainers,
>  > > but I think it would be helpful. Do you need any of the annotations that
>  > > are not generated by level 3 annotations?  (Specified by if
>  > > (annotation_level == 2)... in annotate.c)
>  > 
>  > Sorry about the delay, here is the list of annotations I use/don't use.
>  ...
> 
> Thanks
> 
>  > >  > > 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.
>  > > 
>  > > Why is it a bad idea?
>  > 
>  > Well, it goes back to making CGDB more complicated. For example, CGDB
>  > works with just about any version of GDB. (even 5-7 years old).
>  > 
>  > However, once you go to annotate level 3, now CGDB will have to detect
>  > the version of annotations that GDB supports. This makes things
>  > unnecessarily more complicated. Why not just get rid of annotate 3, and
>  > slowly remove features from annotate 2?
> 
> Level 3 exists alongside level 2 and is a subset.  CGDB doesn't even have
> to know about it.  I'd like to keep it for the reason I've already given
> - to allow a transitions stage - it has (almost) no overhead.

OK.
>  > >  > Do you already use level 3, or could we simply just start stripping down
>  > >  > level 2?
>  > > 
>  > > Keeping level 3 allows a transition stage, I would now like to use it for
>  > > breakpoints-invalid and frames-invalid as stated above, in case I suddenly
>  > > find that Emacs does need them.
>  > 
>  > Well breakpoints-invalid and frames-invalid already work (kind of) in 
>  > a2.  There is no reason to deprecate a2 and then get the same
>  > functionality in a3. (Although I might be missing something?). I really
>  > think that adding an a3 interface is a real bad idea.
> 
> Level 3 has a reduced functionality.  You've already said you think its a bad
> idea, I'm trying to explain why I don't agree.  I'm not adding it, its
> already there.

OK. Thanks for keeping me up to speed. I was under the impression that
level 2 was going to go away completly and level 3 would be the
temporary replacement. If level 2 stays (even though it's reduced), it
would be completly fine with me.

Thanks,
Bob Rossi