From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9253 invoked by alias); 18 Mar 2006 01:31:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 9243 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Mar 2006 01:31:18 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31.1) with ESMTP; Sat, 18 Mar 2006 01:31:16 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1FKQHh-0007O3-CH; Fri, 17 Mar 2006 20:31:13 -0500 Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 06:50:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Nick Roberts Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: MI: type prefixes for values Message-ID: <20060318013113.GA28374@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Nick Roberts , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <17427.54333.236860.258115@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <20060317193243.GB19068@nevyn.them.org> <17435.24954.801098.804532@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <17435.24954.801098.804532@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-03/txt/msg00236.txt.bz2 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