From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6582 invoked by alias); 10 Feb 2006 13:47:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 6541 invoked by uid 22791); 10 Feb 2006 13:47:21 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31.1) with ESMTP; Fri, 10 Feb 2006 13:47:18 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1F7Yc1-0005aQ-Tc; Fri, 10 Feb 2006 08:47:01 -0500 Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 13:47:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: Vladimir Prus , gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: MI error messages Message-ID: <20060210134700.GA21328@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Eli Zaretskii , Vladimir Prus , gdb@sources.redhat.com References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-02/txt/msg00078.txt.bz2 On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 01:54:08PM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > From: Vladimir Prus > > Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 14:35:08 +0300 > > > > 1. Is it guaranteed that all MI error message start with function name and a > > semicolon? > > I see a small number of error messages that don't, but those are > probably bugs that need to be fixed. Really? Why? I don't think the function name adds much value in user-level error messages. Internal errors, sure. It is certainly not guaranteed; there's no separation between "MI error messages" and "other GDB error messages" since an MI session can reach just about any call to error() in the sources. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery