From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
To: Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@polymtl.ca>
Cc: simon.marchi@ericsson.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] doc: Add table of MI versions
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2019 17:04:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <83pnswcz5t.fsf@gnu.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <b64943abaa771c26d03053ae6c5ce9e5@polymtl.ca> (message from Simon Marchi on Tue, 15 Jan 2019 15:37:45 -0500)
> Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2019 15:37:45 -0500
> From: Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@polymtl.ca>
> Cc: simon.marchi@ericsson.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org
>
> Since @sc{gdb/mi} is used by a variety of front ends to
> @value{GDBN}, changes to the MI interface may break existing usage.
> This section describes how the protocol changes and how to request
> previous version of the protocol when it does.
OK, thanks.
> > new versions of the MI protocol are not compatible with the old
> > versions
>
> I thought this was quite obvious by the fact that we say that we
> introduce a new version when we make breaking changes. But I can add
> this sentence, which would result in this:
>
> If the changes are likely to break front ends, the MI version level
> will be increased by one. The new versions of the MI protocol are not
> compatible
> with the old versions. Old versions of MI remain available, allowing
> front ends
> to keep using them until they are modified to use the latest MI version.
Fine by me.
> >> About the idea itself, I don't think we need to implement this.
> >
> > We don't need to agree with it, we just need to preserve the
> > suggestion.
>
> I have opened [1], is it fine to remove the comment from gdb.texinfo?
No objections from me.
> >> If front ends request a specific version of MI (which is good
> >> practice, in my experience), they won't need to query it.
> >
> > What if a front end can support several versions, provided that it
> > knows the latest version which is provided? Why require such a front
> > end to request the lowest common denominator, instead of adapting to
> > the latest version it can support?
>
> I don't think we require front ends to use the lowest common
> denominator. Instead, it should request
> max(version_known_by_the_front_end, version_known_by_gdb).
And I think version_known_by_gdb needs this command, doesn't it?
Thanks.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-01-16 17:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-01-14 20:39 Simon Marchi
2019-01-15 17:28 ` Eli Zaretskii
2019-01-15 18:27 ` Simon Marchi
2019-01-15 19:20 ` Eli Zaretskii
2019-01-15 20:37 ` Simon Marchi
2019-01-16 17:04 ` Eli Zaretskii [this message]
2019-01-16 17:21 ` Simon Marchi
2019-01-16 20:57 ` André Pönitz
2019-01-16 19:35 ` Simon Marchi
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=83pnswcz5t.fsf@gnu.org \
--to=eliz@gnu.org \
--cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
--cc=simon.marchi@ericsson.com \
--cc=simon.marchi@polymtl.ca \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox