Re: MI: type prefixes for values

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>]

On Sat, Mar 18, 2006 at 02:25:14PM +1300, Nick Roberts wrote:
>  > Are there any compatibility concerns, i.e. should we make this change
>  > for mi3 only?  Could some frontend rely on these outputs?  I don't
>  > think Eclipse does - it looks like it has some substantial code
>  > to skip them, though, so at least it is aware of them.
> 
> Unlike Volodya's change, its not a change in the MI protocol but one of
> presentation, so I would put it mi2 -i.e the curent default mi (recall that
> -i=mi sets mi_version to 2).

I don't think it makes a difference - it could confuse consumers of MI2
anyway - that's all I'm worried about.

> I think a large project like Eclipse should follow GDB development to ensure
> that changes in MI that are incompatible with their use aren't made.  At some
> stage a gdb-mi@sourceware.org mailing list might be appropriate with patches
> also going to gdb-patches.

I agree that having frontend developers follow the GDB lists would be a
big help.  But there's some progress for this in the works - more news
to come.

> Since there are likely to be many more changes to MI, I suggest that when we
> start making changes for mi3 only, the default remains at mi2.  This will
> allow a period of development for mi3 during which changes can be made more
> freely.  It could then be made the default level after it has stabilised.

Yes, this is already how we document -i=mi to work.  It's the last
finalized version of the protocol.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery