From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26016 invoked by alias); 8 Oct 2004 13:42:27 -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 25969 invoked from network); 8 Oct 2004 13:42:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 8 Oct 2004 13:42:25 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.34 #1 (Debian)) id 1CFv0l-0000PW-BD; Fri, 08 Oct 2004 09:42:19 -0400 Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 16:28:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: Bob Rossi , cagney@gnu.org, gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Bob's MI objective Message-ID: <20041008134218.GA1467@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Eli Zaretskii , Bob Rossi , cagney@gnu.org, gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <416451B0.3060306@gnu.org> <20041006212652.GB13271@white> <20041008023243.GA15320@white> <01c4ad2b$Blat.v2.2.2$f25b86a0@zahav.net.il> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <01c4ad2b$Blat.v2.2.2$f25b86a0@zahav.net.il> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i X-SW-Source: 2004-10/txt/msg00259.txt.bz2 On Fri, Oct 08, 2004 at 01:41:50PM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 22:32:43 -0400 > > From: Bob Rossi > > > > > * 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. > > The answer to this is that, although the latest stable MI version is > probably the most stable version to rely upon, the old MI versions are > also supported to the degree that there are tests in the test suite > that exercise them. For example, currently there are tests for mi1 > although the latest MI version is mi2. That's not true any more; there were, and they were removed. My understanding is that we have been keeping the last stable protocol in addition to the current development protocol. Of course, there is not much in the way of sample size here! -- Daniel Jacobowitz