From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1045 invoked by alias); 21 Jan 2003 17:41:52 -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 970 invoked from network); 21 Jan 2003 17:41:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO duracef.shout.net) (204.253.184.12) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 21 Jan 2003 17:41:52 -0000 Received: (from mec@localhost) by duracef.shout.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0LHfp308677; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 11:41:51 -0600 Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 17:41:00 -0000 From: Michael Elizabeth Chastain Message-Id: <200301211741.h0LHfp308677@duracef.shout.net> To: gdb@sources.redhat.com, jimb@redhat.com Subject: Re: obsoleting the annotate level 2 interface X-SW-Source: 2003-01/txt/msg00361.txt.bz2 Jim Blandy writes: > If folks agree that annotate level 2 should go, we could: > - announce that annotate level 2 will be disabled in the release after > next; > - in that release, disable the code, but leave it there, to see if > anyone complains, and whether they can be persuaded to switch to MI; > and > - in the release after that, if all goes well, remove the code to > support annotation level 2. According to the NEWS file in gdb 5.1, the annotation interface is deprecated. So I say, go for it! There is one PR open against annotation level 2: pr gdb/785. I think we can quash it if we remove annotation level 2. I sent mail to the submitter, rros7605@postoffice.uri.edu, about other matter (pr gdb/786) on 2003-01-01 and haven't heard back from them, so they probably don't care. And if we remove annotation level 2, then we don't care. gdb.c++/annota2.exp reports two KFAIL's which are unrelated to annotation. One KFAIL is about a hardware watchpoint that triggers on the first instruction after resuming a breakpoint. The other is about sending a ^C and then immediately reading from gdb (I suspect there is a race condition here but I'm not sure). Actually it would be good to move those tests to a different test script right now, because it's such a pain to work with an annotation-enabled test script. I've made a note in my TODO list to do that. > Personally, I'd like to see Emacs switch from annotation level 1 to > MI, too; then we could get rid of annotation altogether. But I think > it makes sense to tackle level 2 first, since I don't think it has > many users (if any). emacs invokes gdb with "gdb -fullname" so it's just our gdb code which maps that to "annotate level 1". We can continue to do the same behavior and just call it the "fullname" flag instead of the "annotation" flag. It looks a bit hard to remove the behavior, because lisp/gud.el interacts with many different debuggers. I suppose it would be nice to have a new emacs gdb interface which takes full advantage of MI, but that would not make lisp/gud.el obsolete, so the "-fullname" behavior would not be obsolete. Michael C