From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10588 invoked by alias); 15 Jan 2008 17:08:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 10578 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Jan 2008 17:08:57 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from main.gmane.org (HELO ciao.gmane.org) (80.91.229.2) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 15 Jan 2008 17:08:37 +0000 Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1JEpH2-0004r3-Cu for gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com; Tue, 15 Jan 2008 17:08:28 +0000 Received: from uslec-66-255-52-67.cust.uslec.net ([66.255.52.67]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2008 17:08:28 +0000 Received: from ghost by uslec-66-255-52-67.cust.uslec.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2008 17:08:28 +0000 To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com From: Vladimir Prus Subject: Re: [BUG:MI] -break-list doesn't list multiple breakpoints Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 17:08:00 -0000 Message-ID: References: <18310.38708.144719.374963@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <18311.64973.546980.107837@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit User-Agent: KNode/0.10.5 X-IsSubscribed: yes 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: 2008-01/txt/msg00353.txt.bz2 Nick Roberts wrote: > > > I'm not sure of the logic of committing an incomplete patch, but in > > > any case I think this needs to be fixed before the next release. > > > > I disagree. If someone needs this functionality in MI, they are > > invited to contribute it. Unless I'm completely mistaken, what > > happened previously in MI was even worse. > > Multiple breakpoints are new, so nothing happened in MI previously did it? > The format of CLI output for pending breakpoints has currently changed and > in that context Vladimir said: > > ...And probably the only way to change the situation is to decide that > MI is the future, and actively discourage use of CLI for anything, to > the degree of immediately refusing any request mentioning CLI in > relation to any frontend. > > Refusing requests mentioning CLI and not providing functionality in MI > seems to leave the frontend developer between a rock and a hard place. As a meta-comment, I'd like to point out that I'm a frontend developer, and I'm in no better position than you in anyway. Now, what do you want -- making sure that all new functionality is available via MI, or that it's available via CLI? Of course "both CLI and MI" is a possible answer, but it increases the amount of work and the time till completion. - Volodya