From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21329 invoked by alias); 10 Sep 2012 20:09:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 21299 invoked by uid 22791); 10 Sep 2012 20:09:52 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,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, 10 Sep 2012 20:09:34 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q8AK9X51017590 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 10 Sep 2012 16:09:33 -0400 Received: from barimba (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q8AK9WQq008546 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 10 Sep 2012 16:09:33 -0400 From: Tom Tromey To: Stan Shebs Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Merge mi-cli.exp and mi2-cli.exp References: <1346419770-5718-1-git-send-email-yao@codesourcery.com> <50469CDA.1030406@earthlink.net> Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 20:09:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <50469CDA.1030406@earthlink.net> (Stan Shebs's message of "Tue, 04 Sep 2012 17:29:14 -0700") Message-ID: <87vcflbpxf.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain 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: 2012-09/txt/msg00140.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Stan" == Stan Shebs writes: Stan> That plan has pretty much fallen by the wayside. We should probably Stan> declare the current MI behavior as the "done" form of MI3, and Stan> disallow any incompatible changes. If someone wants to get ambitious, Stan> they are free to specify and implement MI4. :-) It seems to me that there is still room for MI3, since -i=mi still means MI2. Does anything we know of really use MI3? It seems like clients relying on this are taking liberties. OTOH it isn't like we'll run out of version numbers. Tom