From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8263 invoked by alias); 8 Jun 2010 00:36:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 8250 invoked by uid 22791); 8 Jun 2010 00:36:15 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_20,RCVD_ILLEGAL_IP X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from imr1.ericy.com (HELO imr1.ericy.com) (198.24.6.9) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 08 Jun 2010 00:36:11 +0000 Received: from eusaamw0712.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.181]) by imr1.ericy.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id o580gtF6020682; Mon, 7 Jun 2010 19:42:56 -0500 Received: from EUSAACMS0703.eamcs.ericsson.se ([169.254.2.83]) by eusaamw0712.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.181]) with mapi; Mon, 7 Jun 2010 20:36:08 -0400 From: Marc Khouzam To: "'Vladimir Prus'" , "gdb@sources.redhat.com" Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2010 00:36:00 -0000 Subject: RE: Multiexec MI broke MI compatibility? Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2010-06/txt/msg00025.txt.bz2 > -----Original Message----- > From: gdb-owner@sourceware.org=20 > [mailto:gdb-owner@sourceware.org] On Behalf Of Vladimir Prus > Sent: Saturday, June 05, 2010 1:16 AM > To: gdb@sources.redhat.com > Subject: RE: Multiexec MI broke MI compatibility? >=20 > Marc Khouzam wrote: >=20 > >=20=20 > >=20 > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Frederic Riss [mailto:frederic.riss@gmail.com] > >> Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 4:12 AM > >> To: Marc Khouzam > >> Cc: Vladimir Prus; gdb@sources.redhat.com > >> Subject: Re: Multiexec MI broke MI compatibility? > >>=20 > >> Hi! > >>=20 > >> On 13 April 2010 22:33, Marc Khouzam > >> wrote: > >> >>> 797,748 10-list-thread-groups i1 > >> >>> 797,748 10^error,msg=3D"invalid group id 'i1'" > >> <-------------- when we ask for the same is, GDB rejects it > >> >>> 797,749 (gdb) > >> >> > >> >> This sounds like a bug indeed. Can you file an issue? > >> > > >> > I'm hoping Frederic can do that since he knows the=20 > proper details. > >>=20 > >> Done here: > >> http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D11499 > >=20 > > As there are discussions for an earlier release of 7.2, > > I wanted to mention this regression. > > I think this is something that should be fixed before 7.2. >=20 > Yes, working on that now. Thanks, I saw that it is now fixed. I'll give it a spin with DSF-GDB next week. > >> This leaves the question of whether the thread-group-created > >> notification name change was appropriate (From a backward > >> compatibility POV, not from a pure 'it makes sense' angle). > >=20 > > As for this, is the plan to keep the change or to revert? >=20 > The plan is to keep the change, sorry. Ok, I'll put a check for both formats in DSF-GDB. Of course, any frontend that decides to makes use of the=20 thread-group-created/started will need to be careful if they want to also support GDB 7.0 and GDB 7.1. Marc