From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16778 invoked by alias); 8 Oct 2004 02:32:45 -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 16771 invoked from network); 8 Oct 2004 02:32:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lakermmtao10.cox.net) (68.230.240.29) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 8 Oct 2004 02:32:44 -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 <20041008023242.DRBG15512.lakermmtao10.cox.net@white>; Thu, 7 Oct 2004 22:32:42 -0400 Received: from bob by white with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CFkYl-0003zT-00; Thu, 07 Oct 2004 22:32:43 -0400 Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 07:17:00 -0000 From: Bob Rossi To: Andrew Cagney , gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Bob's MI objective Message-ID: <20041008023243.GA15320@white> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Cagney , gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <416451B0.3060306@gnu.org> <20041006212652.GB13271@white> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20041006212652.GB13271@white> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i X-SW-Source: 2004-10/txt/msg00237.txt.bz2 On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 05:26:52PM -0400, Bob Rossi wrote: > On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 04:12:32PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > > Bob, what's your overall objective here? Perhaphs our lack of > > appreciation of your overriding goals is the reason that some (at least > > I) are feeling somewhat puzzled and confused. Andrew, I would really like some closure on these issues, and since you are the only MI maintainer that responds publically, I figured you could help me out here. I asked this question a week ago and still do not know the answer. This is some information I must know in order to figure out how my front end will deal with different versions of GDB, including CVS snapshots. When I use "support" below, I mainly mean tested in the testsuite and considered stable. > * I would like to know what GDB's policy is in regards to supporting old > MI protocols. ( I have received several opposing views on this ) A new way to phrase this would be, for a given release of GDB (not a CVS snapshot), does that release support one MI protocol, or does it support several MI protocols. The MI protocols need to be tested and stable. A backwards incompatible change would bump the revision. > * I would like to ensure that my front end works well with snapshots > of GDB. I do not want to work with the MI development protocol, I > just want to work with the last officially supported protocol. For CVS snapshots, does GDB only support (tested) the development MI protocol? or does it support the last stable protocol? or does it support multiple stable protocols? A backwards incompatible change at this point would bump the revision at first, but every other backwards compatible revision would not bump the revision until the release, which then the protocol becomes tested and stable. > * I would like to make sure that development protocols are never used > by my front end and that I can figure out all of the officially > supported MI protocols that a given GDB supports. This issue can have different solutions if we know the answer to the questions above. Thanks, Bob Rossi