From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21813 invoked by alias); 8 Oct 2004 06:56:14 -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 21806 invoked from network); 8 Oct 2004 06:56:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO smtp.hispeed.ch) (62.2.95.247) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 8 Oct 2004 06:56:13 -0000 Received: from indel.ch (217-162-27-127.dclient.hispeed.ch [217.162.27.127]) by smtp.hispeed.ch (8.12.6/8.12.6/tornado-1.0) with SMTP id i986uB6O013998 for ; Fri, 8 Oct 2004 08:56:12 +0200 Received: from fabi.indel.ch [192.168.1.19] by indel.ch [127.0.0.1] with SMTP (MDaemon.v2.7.SP5.R) for ; Fri, 08 Oct 2004 08:54:46 +0200 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.1.20041008085113.01d8eb60@NT_SERVER> X-Sender: cenedese@NT_SERVER (Unverified) Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 08:40:00 -0000 To: gdb@sources.redhat.com From: Fabian Cenedese Subject: Re: Bob's MI objective In-Reply-To: <20041007192830.GE14573@white> References: <41659659.2030005@gnu.org> <416451B0.3060306@gnu.org> <20041006212652.GB13271@white> <41647352.50603@gnu.org> <20041007163122.GC14573@white> <41659659.2030005@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: gdb@sources.redhat.com X-Return-Path: cenedese@indel.ch X-SW-Source: 2004-10/txt/msg00238.txt.bz2 >> >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