From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1944 invoked by alias); 3 Oct 2004 18:44:58 -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 1936 invoked from network); 3 Oct 2004 18:44:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lakermmtao10.cox.net) (68.230.240.29) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 3 Oct 2004 18:44:57 -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 <20041003184458.LESW5128.lakermmtao10.cox.net@white> for ; Sun, 3 Oct 2004 14:44:58 -0400 Received: from bob by white with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CEBLs-0001t5-00 for ; Sun, 03 Oct 2004 14:44:56 -0400 Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 19:35:00 -0000 From: Bob Rossi To: GDB Subject: Re: GDB/MI snapshots between major release's Message-ID: <20041003184456.GE7030@white> Mail-Followup-To: GDB References: <20041003163918.GB7030@white> <20041003180030.6B230502AB6@stray.canids> <20041003183618.GD7030@white> <20041003184036.GA10453@nevyn.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20041003184036.GA10453@nevyn.them.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i X-SW-Source: 2004-10/txt/msg00035.txt.bz2 On Sun, Oct 03, 2004 at 02:40:36PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Sun, Oct 03, 2004 at 02:36:18PM -0400, Bob Rossi wrote: > > On Sun, Oct 03, 2004 at 11:00:30AM -0700, Felix Lee wrote: > > > Bob Rossi : > > > > How should front end developers deal with snapshots of GDB, that are > > > > taken between major versions of GDB. Several distributions > > > > > > I think you're overthinking this. if some version of gdb doesn't > > > fulfill the compatibility guarantee, then it's a bug in gdb, and > > > it shouldn't be hard to have the user install a gdb version > > > without the bug. at worst, you can supply your own version of > > > gdb. few things depend on specific gdb version. it's not a big > > > deal to have multiple gdb versions installed. source code > > > availability means you don't have to wait for the gdb cabal to > > > fix it, and the cabal is generally eager to take reasonable > > > bugfixes, which solves the long-term problem. > > > > I would say that I am not overthinking it, I am simply thinking about > > it. I want to make sure that CVS snapshots will support a valid MI > > interface. Major distro's use these snapshots, and I would like to have > > compatibility with them. > > So, use the last frozen MI version supported by that snapshot? Yes, that's what I was thinking also. Is that what is expected? Finally, this idea along with this new command line argument, http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb/2004-10/msg00027.html I would be able to figure out the last stable version of MI is and use it, even when it is a CVS snapshot. Does this sound correct? I figure the command line argument --mi-protocols will only output the versions of MI that were released as stable ( for a release ). This would solve several important problem for me. Thanks, Bob Rossi