Re: probing GDB for MI versions

Bob Rossi
2004-10-06T20:13:13Z

On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 03:53:41PM -0400, Alain Magloire wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 03:09:58PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> > > If a current GDB were modified to list mi "versions" then it would only
> > > print mi2, which is the version selected by -i=mi. If your front end
> > > specifies -i=mi1 then you're on your own - it's not tested - it doesn't
> > > work.
> >
> > WHAT?!? This is what I have been asking all along? It was the foundation
> > to this conversation. Where were you to inform everyone of this?
> >
>
> But I think that was the folks been saying. If you choose a specific
> version to start gdb in your front-end say, "-i=mi1" why do you care
> later to know about "mi2" or "mix" ?
>
> If you start with "-i=mi", it will be handy to know which mi level,
> in this case the front-end can take appropriate action
> or restart trying a known version "-i=mi1"
>
> Am I missing something here ?
> I'm curious to understand why you reject the others propositions as inadequate.

Alain, I started some talks several days ago about how GDB behaves when
it comes to backwards compatibility of the MI protocols. Everyone has
told me that it supports the current official release, and it supports
all of the old releases.

As far as I can tell, several days later, andrew comes on the seen and
says that GDB only plans on supporting the last official release. This
is information I would to have like to had several days ago. Better yet,
it's information that should be documented for all to easily find the
answer to.

> > Are you saying that old versions of MI are not supported by GDB? Only
> > the last official release of the MI protocol is supported and that no
> > other versions that it used to speak with are supported or tested?
> >
>
> how did you manage to come up with such conclusions ?

I am assuming this front what Andrew said below,

> > > If a current GDB were modified to list mi "versions" then it would only
> > > print mi2, which is the version selected by -i=mi. If your front end
> > > specifies -i=mi1 then you're on your own - it's not tested - it doesn't
> > > work.

Bobby