From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9793 invoked by alias); 5 Feb 2003 20:04:25 -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 9783 invoked from network); 5 Feb 2003 20:04:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO white) (68.14.146.65) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 5 Feb 2003 20:04:24 -0000 Received: from bob by white with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18gVmR-0001jp-00 for ; Wed, 05 Feb 2003 15:04:23 -0500 Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 20:04:00 -0000 From: Bob Rossi To: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: obsoleting annotate level 2 Message-ID: <20030205200423.GB4309@white> Mail-Followup-To: gdb@sources.redhat.com References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i X-SW-Source: 2003-02/txt/msg00106.txt.bz2 On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 01:48:17AM -0500, Jim Blandy wrote: > > Mike Mueller writes: > > Jim Blandy wrote: > > > > > The plan has been, for a very long time, to remove all > > > annotations. I proposed keeping level one annotations. Here was > > > my rationale: > > > > > Level one annotations are implemented by code at two or three > > > points in GDB. They're not a big deal to maintain. And they're > > > what current releases of Emacs use. > > > > > Level two annotations are implemented by (I think) around eighty > > > different bits of code, scattered throughout GDB. > > > > > Thus, while level one annotations are only a small maintenance > > > burden, level two annotations are. Even if Emacs had been using > > > level two annotations for years, we would be trying to get rid of > > > them. > > > > Jim, > > > > Our only concern is that annotate 2 is the basis of our > > application. Our request is that the removal of annotate 2 is done > > when MI is stable and is successfully used by at least one > > application. Until MI has reached that point, our application will > > be forced to depend on annotate 2. > > MI is already successfully in use by one (admittedly non-free) > application --- Apple's Power Builder. Eclipse uses it now, too. > > MI is, by design, always going to be more stable than annotation level > two. MI imposes more structure on its output than annotation level > two does. > > So I think MI is ready for the transition. > > When you do find something you need, ask here. In most cases, it's > very easy to add something to MI; when an easy case comes up, I'll > point it out, and you can get a chance to try doing it yourself. Once > you can write your own patches to provide what you need, and you > understand the GDB coding standards, I think things will go very > quickly for you. Is gdb-mi ready to be used in gdb-5.3? or should I check out the cvs tree in order to start building the new interface between cgdb and gdb? Bobby