From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4537 invoked by alias); 21 Jan 2003 19:04:51 -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 4479 invoked from network); 21 Jan 2003 19:04:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO frigg.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.16) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 21 Jan 2003 19:04:50 -0000 Received: from zaretsky (adsl-ayalon-pc-129-22.inter.net.il [213.8.129.22]) by frigg.inter.net.il (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.2.1-GA) with ESMTP id CCM56966; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 21:04:40 +0200 (IST) Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 19:04:00 -0000 From: "Eli Zaretskii" To: jimb@redhat.com Message-Id: <7458-Tue21Jan2003210302+0200-eliz@is.elta.co.il> CC: gdb@sources.redhat.com, djgpp-workers@delorie.com In-reply-to: (message from Jim Blandy on 21 Jan 2003 02:32:01 -0500) Subject: Re: obsoleting the annotate level 2 interface Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: X-SW-Source: 2003-01/txt/msg00364.txt.bz2 > From: Jim Blandy > Date: 21 Jan 2003 02:32:01 -0500 > > GDB seems to support two different ways of doing detailed annotations > of its output for consumption by other programs: MI and 'set annotate > 2'. I don't think annotation level 2 has many active users, if any at > all. It pervades GDB's code. Would it make sense to put 'set > annotate 2' on the path to obsolescence? It's possible that RHIDE, the Turbo-C compatible IDE developed for DJGPP, uses "annotate 2" (RHIDE has the GDB core built into it). I CC the DJGPP developers' mailing list, in the hope that someone who knows more than myself about the debugging engine of RHIDE will tell whether I'm wrong.