From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31690 invoked by alias); 3 Dec 2012 20:31:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 31679 invoked by uid 22791); 3 Dec 2012 20:31:37 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_SPAMHAUS_DROP,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 03 Dec 2012 20:31:33 +0000 Received: from int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.25]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id qB3KVUg5012373 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 3 Dec 2012 15:31:30 -0500 Received: from host2.jankratochvil.net (ovpn-116-104.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.104]) by int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id qB3KVQhW011732 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 3 Dec 2012 15:31:29 -0500 Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2012 20:31:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: =?utf-8?B?QW5kcsOpIFDDtm5pdHo=?= Cc: Tom Tromey , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: RFC: implement "catch signal" Message-ID: <20121203203126.GA13490@host2.jankratochvil.net> References: <874nkpv03j.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <20121202093807.GA21883@host2.jankratochvil.net> <87y5hfvu5v.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <20121203193713.GA10256@host2.jankratochvil.net> <87obibvsb1.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <20121203202233.GA23933@klara.mpi.htwm.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20121203202233.GA23933@klara.mpi.htwm.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2012-12/txt/msg00042.txt.bz2 On Mon, 03 Dec 2012 21:22:33 +0100, André Pönitz wrote: > As a more general remark from a MI consumer's perspective: It's nicer to not > change existing fields, but instead add new ones. > > I understand that changing values is formally covered by the "guarantees" in > sourceware.org/gdb/onlinedocs/gdb/GDB_002fMI-Development-and-Front-Ends.html, > as this is covered by "The range of values for fields with specified values > [...] may be extended" but I would like to think that the basic idea behind > writing those rules was to not break consumers of existing MI output when > extending that output. A preference of adding new fields over changing > contents (or even "type" of existing fields) should increase the chance > that frontends don't break, and can adjust to the change at their own pace. In such case maybe the original behavior was most compatible, just ", " -> " ". Or there could be: body=[bkpt={number="1",type="catchpoint",disp="keep",enabled="y",what="",signal=["SIGINT","SIGTRAP"],times="0"}] Jan