Re: [PATCH] Hooks still needed for annotations

Nick Roberts
2005-06-15T21:38:21Z

> > > > 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.

> > > 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.

Nick