Re: [PATCH] Hooks still needed for annotations

Bob Rossi
2005-06-15T22:58:07Z

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