From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 442 invoked by alias); 15 Jun 2005 22:58:07 -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 425 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Jun 2005 22:58:01 -0000 Received: from lakermmtao03.cox.net (HELO lakermmtao03.cox.net) (68.230.240.36) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Wed, 15 Jun 2005 22:58:01 +0000 Received: from white ([68.9.64.121]) by lakermmtao03.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.04.00 201-2131-118-20041027) with ESMTP id <20050615225800.CXLK18229.lakermmtao03.cox.net@white>; Wed, 15 Jun 2005 18:58:00 -0400 Received: from bob by white with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1Digpb-0005fr-00; Wed, 15 Jun 2005 18:57:59 -0400 Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 22:58:00 -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: <20050615225759.GA21803@white> Mail-Followup-To: Nick Roberts , Daniel Jacobowitz , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <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> <20050610022625.GA6660@white> <17065.2154.827857.784226@farnswood.snap.net.nz> <20050615152358.GA20778@white> <17072.40956.31718.931121@farnswood.snap.net.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <17072.40956.31718.931121@farnswood.snap.net.nz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i X-SW-Source: 2005-06/txt/msg00208.txt.bz2 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