From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8588 invoked by alias); 30 Sep 2004 20:42:31 -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 8579 invoked from network); 30 Sep 2004 20:42:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lakermmtao10.cox.net) (68.230.240.29) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 30 Sep 2004 20:42:30 -0000 Received: from white ([68.9.64.121]) by lakermmtao10.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.03.04 201-2131-111-106-20040729) with ESMTP id <20040930204228.VCLS5128.lakermmtao10.cox.net@white>; Thu, 30 Sep 2004 16:42:28 -0400 Received: from bob by white with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CD7kz-0000na-00; Thu, 30 Sep 2004 16:42:29 -0400 Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 20:42:00 -0000 From: Bob Rossi To: Andrew Cagney Cc: Eli Zaretskii , jingham@apple.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com, cagney@redhat.com, ezannoni@redhat.com, fnasser@redhat.com Subject: Re: MI rules Message-ID: <20040930204229.GE2271@white> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Cagney , Eli Zaretskii , jingham@apple.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com, cagney@redhat.com, ezannoni@redhat.com, fnasser@redhat.com References: <1095954341.19418.ezmlm@sources.redhat.com> <20040925010519.GB3379@white> <4E6C7AD8-0F25-11D9-AD7A-000D932CB92C@apple.com> <20040925201242.GA4133@white> <1AB1A5F6-10AC-11D9-8F3A-000A958F4C44@apple.com> <20040929025959.GA357@white> <01c4a6f0$Blat.v2.2.2$cc707360@zahav.net.il> <20040930162134.GA2271@white> <415C35ED.2070609@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <415C35ED.2070609@gnu.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i X-SW-Source: 2004-09/txt/msg00277.txt.bz2 On Thu, Sep 30, 2004 at 12:35:57PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > FYI, > > While I've been very carefully following this thread, I've not yet seen > a compelling reason to step into the debate. I think JimI's already > addressed the issues (thanks), and pointed to where things should go. I still think that we need to add tags to the MI interface, especially for asynchronous MI output commands ( notifications ). Can this be discussed with the maintainers and front end developers? Andrew, you have been the only maintainer that has responded, and I am grateful for that. However, you simply answer with "no", and I personally get the impression you are not taking the matters I am bringing up seriously. For instance, 1. I am bringing up the fact that I need a tag for MI output commands that are asynchronous (notifications). I also said that I would prefer to have it for all of them, because then I wouldn't need to play around with the "tokens" at all. 2. You respond by saying "I think others have already responded to this proposal with a clear rationale for not making a change." 3. While I talk to Jim more about it, I find that he has tags in his local version of GDB for MI output commands that are asynchronous. They do this because they need exactly what I need. So, two front end developers have independently come across the same need out of MI. Unfortunately, I don't have the resources to take GDB, patch it and distribute it with CGDB. Honestly, I am only interested in making MI better for everyone. Hopefully we can resolve these issues for the better of GDB. If you think that this particular feature should not go into GDB, I would really appreciate to at least be told the way to do what I'm trying to do with the current MI interface. Thanks, Bob Rossi