Re: Bob's MI objective

[Fabian Cenedese <Cenedese@indel.ch>]

>> >Understood, here is what I am hoping for at a minimum. 
>> >
>> >   * GDB supports at least 1 MI protocol for an official release. 
>> >     Supporting multiple MI protocols would be better for me, but 
>> >     not a requirement. If GDB could support multiple protocols it 
>> >     would improve the chances of a given front end working with a
>> >     given GDB.
>> 
>> But by "support" what do you mean - even a dictionary definition.  GDB 
>> includes at least one MI implementation, but that says nothing about how 
>> well it is either implemented or supported.
>
>That's a good question.
>
>Well, by support I simply mean, GDB is officially saying that a
>particular MI protocol is implemented as it should be, that it is tested
>to make sure that it works to the best of the GDB developers knowledge and 
>that it is safe to use by front ends.
>
>I am assuming that MI protocols in development ( right after a version
>bump, but before a major release ) is considered unsupported. By this I
>guess I mean that it should not be used by front ends until it is
>stable. Maybe a better word for "support" in this context is "stable".

I think the implementation grade is quite important. Though mi2 is
considered now the official and stable mi version I find that half of it
is unimplemented which makes it somehow useless for me. From
this point of view I'd say mi2 is the development version.
(And yes, I'm not only complaining, I have started implementing some
of the missing mi functions.)

Thanks

bye  Fabi