From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28588 invoked by alias); 21 May 2014 16:48:10 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 28572 invoked by uid 89); 21 May 2014 16:48:08 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 21 May 2014 16:48:07 +0000 Received: from int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s4LGljD9023046 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 21 May 2014 12:47:45 -0400 Received: from barimba (ovpn-113-182.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.182]) by int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s4LGlhD2005469 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 21 May 2014 12:47:44 -0400 From: Tom Tromey To: Jan Kratochvil Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Aleksandar Ristovski Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 6/8] gdbserver build-id attribute generator References: <20140319223004.14668.20989.stgit@host1.jankratochvil.net> <20140319223115.14668.73456.stgit@host1.jankratochvil.net> <87ppj8tswu.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <20140521122414.GA14744@host2.jankratochvil.net> Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 16:48:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20140521122414.GA14744@host2.jankratochvil.net> (Jan Kratochvil's message of "Wed, 21 May 2014 14:24:14 +0200") Message-ID: <87lhtvm634.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-SW-Source: 2014-05/txt/msg00490.txt.bz2 Jan> I wrote a never replied essay + [patch] fix about why the current handling Jan> of 'version' is wrong: Jan> [patch] gdbserver and its #FIXED version="1.0" Jan> https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2011-11/msg00099.html I read that note. The patch seems correct to me. Tom> I really don't know; nor did I find anything in the documentation. Tom> So at the very least this needs an update to the manual to warn Tom> future users. Jan> I do not understand this. The only changed (newly added) attribute is Jan> build-id #IMPLIED - therefore optional - therefore backward/forward Jan> compatible. Who needs to be warned about it? I thought all attributes had to be specified in the DTD. Is that not so? If they must be then the problem comes when using an older gdb with a newer gdbserver. Anyway the point of my "warn" comment is that, ideally, our versioning approach ought to be documented. Tom