From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-53886-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 3177 invoked by alias); 1 Feb 2008 19:28:26 -0000
Received: (qmail 3168 invoked by uid 22791); 1 Feb 2008 19:28:25 -0000
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from qnxmail.qnx.com (HELO qnxmail.qnx.com) (209.226.137.76)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 01 Feb 2008 19:28:08 +0000
Received: from smtp.ott.qnx.com (smtp.ott.qnx.com [10.42.96.5]) 	by hub.ott.qnx.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA28763; 	Fri, 1 Feb 2008 14:14:54 -0500
Received: from [10.42.100.129] (dhcp-100-129 [10.42.100.129]) by smtp.ott.qnx.com (8.8.8/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA10035; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 14:28:05 -0500
Message-ID: <47A372C5.40609@qnx.com>
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2008 19:28:00 -0000
From: Aleksandar Ristovski <aristovski@qnx.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
CC: Doug Evans <dje@google.com>, gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: [patch] make --disable-gdbmi work
References: <47A23493.5000508@qnx.com> <20080131205719.GA1887@caradoc.them.org> <47A2371C.3020402@qnx.com> <e394668d0802010939p7ad83362j1b5a43541e9fb57b@mail.gmail.com> <47A36DA3.2080804@qnx.com> <20080201191926.GA13787@caradoc.them.org>
In-Reply-To: <20080201191926.GA13787@caradoc.them.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2008-02/txt/msg00032.txt.bz2

Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 02:06:11PM -0500, Aleksandar Ristovski wrote:
>> Yes, Vladimir correctly pointed out - my argument about reducing the code 
>> size is not really a good one...
>>
>> I still think the patch is useful, if for no other reason, to keep 
>> dependencies single directional (mi -> gdb).
> 
> That's the part I don't think is useful.  The dependencies shouldn't
> be single-directional; I don't see why we should keep MI out of the
> rest of GDB.
> 
Without wanting to get into a lengthy discussion, I have to disagree with this: 
keeping things modular is important, and one of the cleanest ways is keeping 
dependencies single directional whenever possible. Modularity may not be the 
goal of keeping things modular, but extensibility and maintainability are.

Ok, I got into the 'lengthy discussion' mode, but I quickly deleted what I 
started typing (about functional interface in gdb, MI using it blah blah...)...