Re: MI error messages

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>]

On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 05:22:31PM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > I don't think the function name adds much value in user-level error
> > messages.
> 
> MI is not a user-level protocol, it's a machine-level protocol.  What
> is displayed to the user as a result is another matter.

These are just the result of calls to error ().  Admittedly, many of
them are for mistakes that a GUI shouldn't be making - but some can
easily come from user input, so when you get one, I don't think you've
got much choice but to display it to the user.

> > 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.
> 
> We should either have all or none of the MI messages state the
> function.  A machine-oriented interface must be consistent, IMO.

Then they'll have to go unless you want error () to automatically
collect the function (not very useful, IMO).

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery