From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18199 invoked by alias); 12 May 2006 18:27:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 18191 invoked by uid 22791); 12 May 2006 18:27:29 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from romy.inter.net.il (HELO romy.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.66) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 12 May 2006 18:27:25 +0000 Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-80-230-33-4.inter.net.il [80.230.33.4]) by romy.inter.net.il (MOS 3.7.3-GA) with ESMTP id EEC17108 (AUTH halo1); Fri, 12 May 2006 21:27:22 +0300 (IDT) Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 18:28:00 -0000 Message-Id: From: Eli Zaretskii To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <20060512142135.GG26655@brasko.net> (message from Bob Rossi on Fri, 12 May 2006 10:21:35 -0400) Subject: Re: CLI and GDB/MI documentation patch Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <20060512011730.GA26655@brasko.net> <20060512125433.GD26655@brasko.net> <20060512142135.GG26655@brasko.net> X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-05/txt/msg00251.txt.bz2 > Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 10:21:35 -0400 > From: Bob Rossi > Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com > > I'm not sure if it helps to think of things in terms of releases in > regards to GDB/MI. Unfortunatly, many distros package a CVS release of > GDB. So, any given snapshot of GDB could have this feature or not. People who use GDB snapshots are on their own when some feature evolves during development. So I'm not bothered by this. > However, with that said, Nick posted this: > > 2005-02-20 Andrew Cagney > > * mi/mi-main.c (captured_mi_execute_command): Use > mi_cmd_interpreter_exec. Thanks for the reference. > So I believe that's the day when it started working nice. Eli, the real > problem is, mi2 is the currently supported protocol, and certain > versions of mi2 work and certain version don't, so I'm not sure this is > a historical issue. It's history from the point view of someone who reads the manual with your patches: the old behavior is already gone in the GDB version that goes with that manual. > I thought I did, but apparently I was unclear. The next 2 paragraphs > were supposed to describe what it's role is now, I'm sorry to see it was > written so unclear. Thanks for the clarifications. I will try to come up with some text that adds the necessary information.