From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25793 invoked by alias); 22 Jun 2003 18:15:33 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 25695 invoked from network); 22 Jun 2003 18:15:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (24.157.166.107) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 22 Jun 2003 18:15:30 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 766F72B5F; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 14:15:19 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3EF5F237.6010601@redhat.com> Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2003 18:15:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030223 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alain Magloire Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFC] -mi-level command References: <200305072028.QAA03258@node1.ott.qnx.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-06/txt/msg00705.txt.bz2 >> Should it also include the gdb version string? > > > It is already covered by: > -gdb-version Doh! >> Should it indicate the range of supported MI versions? >> (what ever is useful). > > > I think what you are referring is a set command like > > -mi-set-level "mi2" > > In this case, I am only interested in knowing the mi protocol version. Ok. >> 'gdb -i=mi2' should get you back to something that was released in 5.3. >> "mi3" won't become official until GDB 6 is released, however, for it >> it return "2" would be wrong. >> > > > Well the problem is that the function mi_version() is returning "3" > How can I, reliably, get the MI version beeing use? Use a GDB from a released branch (hope I remember to do the next one correctly). At that point -gdb-version should return something meaningful, and -mi-version will be considered frozen. The gdb on the mainline gets its mi version rolled as soon as something incompatible gets changed. So while the last release reports "2", the mainline reports the work-in-progress "3". >> It will need documentation and a testcase. >> > > > Agreed, will do, if the new command is accepted. > > BTW: seems to have some confusion with "MI level" and "MI version" > > Should the command name be : > -mi-level > or > -mi-version Argh. I suspect -mi-version is better. There are potential incompatibilities between the diferent versions. Andrew