From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23163 invoked by alias); 2 Oct 2004 16:26:19 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 23147 invoked from network); 2 Oct 2004 16:26:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO balder.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.15) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 2 Oct 2004 16:26:18 -0000 Received: from zaretski ([80.230.152.240]) by balder.inter.net.il (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.3.7-GR) with ESMTP id DUS06351 (AUTH halo1); Sat, 2 Oct 2004 18:26:06 +0200 (IST) Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 16:28:00 -0000 From: "Eli Zaretskii" To: Bob Rossi Message-ID: <01c4a89c$Blat.v2.2.2$40bcdc20@zahav.net.il> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 CC: gdb@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <20041001142517.GD4100@white> (message from Bob Rossi on Fri, 1 Oct 2004 10:25:17 -0400) Subject: Re: MI and backwards compatibility Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <20041001142517.GD4100@white> X-SW-Source: 2004-10/txt/msg00019.txt.bz2 > Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2004 10:25:17 -0400 > From: Bob Rossi > > So, here is an example that I don't see to far fetched within the next > few years. The question is, what does backwards compatibility mean? > This is what I expect, > > FE 1.0 or after to never work with GDB 1.0 > FE 1.0 to work with GDB 2.0 on using mi2. > FE 2.0 to work with GDB 2.0 and 3.0 using mi2 > and with GDB 4.0 on with mi3 > FE 3.0 to work with GDB 2.0 and 3.0 using mi2 > and with GDB 4.0 with mi3 > and with GDB 5.0 with mi4 I don't see any problems with what you described. Am I missing something?