From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-return-24221-listarch-gdb=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 19020 invoked by alias); 10 Feb 2006 15:22:49 -0000
Received: (qmail 19011 invoked by uid 22791); 10 Feb 2006 15:22:49 -0000
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from gandalf.inter.net.il (HELO gandalf.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.17)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 10 Feb 2006 15:22:46 +0000
Received: from nitzan.inter.net.il (nitzan.inter.net.il [192.114.186.20]) 	by gandalf.inter.net.il (MOS 3.7.1-GA) 	with ESMTP id HVI14558; 	Fri, 10 Feb 2006 17:22:30 +0200 (IST)
Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-80-230-46-105.inter.net.il [80.230.46.105]) 	by nitzan.inter.net.il (MOS 3.7.3-GA) 	with ESMTP id CRF18611 (AUTH halo1); 	Fri, 10 Feb 2006 17:22:28 +0200 (IST)
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 15:22:00 -0000
Message-Id: <uirrn2q88.fsf@gnu.org>
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
To: Vladimir Prus <ghost@cs.msu.su>, gdb@sources.redhat.com
In-reply-to: <20060210134700.GA21328@nevyn.them.org> (message from Daniel 	Jacobowitz on Fri, 10 Feb 2006 08:47:01 -0500)
Subject: Re: MI error messages
Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
References: <dshtpc$frg$1@sea.gmane.org> <ulkwj2zvj.fsf@gnu.org> <20060210134700.GA21328@nevyn.them.org>
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2006-02/txt/msg00081.txt.bz2

> Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 08:47:01 -0500
> From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
> Cc: Vladimir Prus <ghost@cs.msu.su>, gdb@sources.redhat.com
> 
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 01:54:08PM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > > From:  Vladimir Prus <ghost@cs.msu.su>
> > > Date:  Fri, 10 Feb 2006 14:35:08 +0300
> > > 
> > > 1. Is it guaranteed that all MI error message start with function name and a
> > > semicolon?
> > 
> > I see a small number of error messages that don't, but those are
> > probably bugs that need to be fixed.
> 
> Really?  Why?

For consistency.

> 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.

> 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.