From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8345 invoked by alias); 28 Jan 2003 20:05:27 -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 8331 invoked from network); 28 Jan 2003 20:05:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO zenia.red-bean.com) (66.244.67.22) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 28 Jan 2003 20:05:24 -0000 Received: from zenia.red-bean.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by zenia.red-bean.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h0SJxi8A023309; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 14:59:44 -0500 Received: (from jimb@localhost) by zenia.red-bean.com (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id h0SJxgoA023305; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 14:59:42 -0500 To: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: [Various] obsoleting the annotate level 2 interface From: Jim Blandy Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 20:05:00 -0000 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2.92 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=-=-=" X-SW-Source: 2003-01/txt/msg00465.txt.bz2 --=-=-= Content-length: 101 Annotate 2 isn't dead after all! Or, we took too long to delete it, and it came back to life. :( --=-=-= Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="==-=-=" --==-=-= Content-Type: text/plain Content-length: 267 Subject: Topics Topics: obsoleting the annotate level 2 interface Re: obsoleting the annotate level 2 interface Re: obsoleting the annotate level 2 interface Re: obsoleting the annotate level 2 interface Re: obsoleting the annotate level 2 interface --==-=-= Content-length: 3606 Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 19:02:21 +0000 From: Nick Roberts To: Jim Blandy Cc: rms@gnu.org Subject: obsoleting the annotate level 2 interface Message-ID: <15917.39229.935851.920452@nick.uklinux.net> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-length: 3257 There is a mode in the Emacs CVS repository (gdb-ui.el) that I have written (based on gdba.el by Tom Lord and Jim Kingdon) that uses annotation level 2. I did try to use GDB/MI when I started writing it but gave up because it wasn't complete at the time (March/April last year). There was some discussion on the mailing list and I felt that the folks working on the Eclipse project became similarly disillusioned (I think that they might also currently use annotation level 2). Additionally there was a debate about whether the command line interface would be suported through GDB/MI as Richard Stallman was anxious to keep the GUD buffer. Also, I think that DDD uses annotation level 1. I had presumed that development on annotations had ceased and not that it would be taken out. It has appeared quite robust to me and Andrew Cagney has said as much. It would be a shame to lose it before GDB/MI has gained proven acceptance. Anyway, I'm sure that Richard will have something further to add. Jim Blandy writes: > > 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? > > Some background: the 'set annotate' command sets the > 'annotation_level' variable. There are only three distinguished > values for this variable: > > 0: nothing special, GDB behaves normally. > 1: in source.c:line_info and stack.c:print_frame_info, when we print > the source line, we print out something extra that helps Emacs pop > up the source code in a window. > 2 or greater: we enable around 250 calls to a variety of functions in > annotate.c to mark and identify lots of things GDB prints. > > I think we should keep level 1, since the standard Emacs GDB interface > uses it, and it's not very much code. > > I'd like to see GDB dump level 2, since it duplicates MI, badly. MI's > design ensures that whoever's trying to parse GDB's output gets > something that's well-formed, whereas annotate just sticks escape > codes into the outgoing stream of text. This means that, if you > change the way anything prints, you may break an annotate level 2 > client. But to break an MI client, you actually have to change a > ui_out call, whose sole purpose is to produce output for clients to > read. So MI is a much more maintainable approach, because it's easier > for people to see what they're doing. > > If folks agree that annotate level 2 should go, we could: > - announce that annotate level 2 will be disabled in the release after > next; > - in that release, disable the code, but leave it there, to see if > anyone complains, and whether they can be persuaded to switch to MI; > and > - in the release after that, if all goes well, remove the code to > support annotation level 2. > > Personally, I'd like to see Emacs switch from annotation level 1 to > MI, too; then we could get rid of annotation altogether. But I think > it makes sense to tackle level 2 first, since I don't think it has > many users (if any). > --==-=-= Content-length: 4436 Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 03:00:15 -0500 From: Richard Stallman to: hilfingr@CS.Berkeley.edu, vincent@waw.com, jimb@redhat.com, cagney@redhat.com, jtc@acorntoolworks.com, dewar@gnat.com, klee@apple.com, shebs@apple.com, toddpw@toddpw.org cc: Nick Roberts Subject: Re: obsoleting the annotate level 2 interface Message-Id: References: <15917.39229.935851.920452@nick.uklinux.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-length: 3879 Please don't drop the support for annotation level 2. The new Emacs feature gdb-ui.el uses it. If in the future people want to adapt Emacs to use MI instead, that would be ok. If Emacs is to use MI, it is essential to make the command line work side by side with MI. From: Nick Roberts Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 19:02:21 +0000 To: Jim Blandy Cc: rms@gnu.org Subject: obsoleting the annotate level 2 interface In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.4 required=5.0 tests=IN_REP_TO,REFERENCES,SPAM_PHRASE_01_02 version=2.41 X-Spam-Level: There is a mode in the Emacs CVS repository (gdb-ui.el) that I have written (based on gdba.el by Tom Lord and Jim Kingdon) that uses annotation level 2. I did try to use GDB/MI when I started writing it but gave up because it wasn't complete at the time (March/April last year). There was some discussion on the mailing list and I felt that the folks working on the Eclipse project became similarly disillusioned (I think that they might also currently use annotation level 2). Additionally there was a debate about whether the command line interface would be suported through GDB/MI as Richard Stallman was anxious to keep the GUD buffer. Also, I think that DDD uses annotation level 1. I had presumed that development on annotations had ceased and not that it would be taken out. It has appeared quite robust to me and Andrew Cagney has said as much. It would be a shame to lose it before GDB/MI has gained proven acceptance. Anyway, I'm sure that Richard will have something further to add. Jim Blandy writes: > > 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? > > Some background: the 'set annotate' command sets the > 'annotation_level' variable. There are only three distinguished > values for this variable: > > 0: nothing special, GDB behaves normally. > 1: in source.c:line_info and stack.c:print_frame_info, when we print > the source line, we print out something extra that helps Emacs pop > up the source code in a window. > 2 or greater: we enable around 250 calls to a variety of functions in > annotate.c to mark and identify lots of things GDB prints. > > I think we should keep level 1, since the standard Emacs GDB interface > uses it, and it's not very much code. > > I'd like to see GDB dump level 2, since it duplicates MI, badly. MI's > design ensures that whoever's trying to parse GDB's output gets > something that's well-formed, whereas annotate just sticks escape > codes into the outgoing stream of text. This means that, if you > change the way anything prints, you may break an annotate level 2 > client. But to break an MI client, you actually have to change a > ui_out call, whose sole purpose is to produce output for clients to > read. So MI is a much more maintainable approach, because it's easier > for people to see what they're doing. > > If folks agree that annotate level 2 should go, we could: > - announce that annotate level 2 will be disabled in the release after > next; > - in that release, disable the code, but leave it there, to see if > anyone complains, and whether they can be persuaded to switch to MI; > and > - in the release after that, if all goes well, remove the code to > support annotation level 2. > > Personally, I'd like to see Emacs switch from annotation level 1 to > MI, too; then we could get rid of annotation altogether. But I think > it makes sense to tackle level 2 first, since I don't think it has > many users (if any). > --==-=-= Content-length: 5528 Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:49:44 -0500 From: Andrew Cagney To: rms@gnu.org Cc: hilfingr@CS.Berkeley.edu, vincent@waw.com, jimb@redhat.com, cagney@redhat.com, jtc@acorntoolworks.com, dewar@gnat.com, klee@apple.com, shebs@apple.com, toddpw@toddpw.org, Nick Roberts Subject: Re: obsoleting the annotate level 2 interface Message-ID: <3E301D28.3060504@redhat.com> References: <15917.39229.935851.920452@nick.uklinux.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-length: 4923 > Please don't drop the support for annotation level 2. > The new Emacs feature gdb-ui.el uses it. > > If in the future people want to adapt Emacs to use MI instead, that > would be ok. If Emacs is to use MI, it is essential to make the > command line work side by side with MI. This is very very unfortunate. The 5.1 release notes, from 2001-11-21 clearly read: > * The MI enabled by default. > > The new machine oriented interface (MI) introduced in GDB 5.0 has been > revised and enabled by default. Packages which use GDB as a debugging > engine behind a UI or another front end are encouraged to switch to > using the GDB/MI interface, instead of the old annotations interface > which is now deprecated. GDB developers are working to resolve all known issues with MI that would block EMACS(1). We really don't want to be in a situtation where we're forced to prop up the level two annotations. For the record. Eclipse is using MI and not annotations. The frustrations the Eclipse group stemed largly from a lack of communication, on their part, with the GDB group. Andrew (1) Two are known. The command line, and a tab-expand. > From: Nick Roberts > Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 19:02:21 +0000 > To: Jim Blandy > Cc: rms@gnu.org > Subject: obsoleting the annotate level 2 interface > In-Reply-To: > X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.4 required=5.0 > tests=IN_REP_TO,REFERENCES,SPAM_PHRASE_01_02 > version=2.41 > X-Spam-Level: > > > There is a mode in the Emacs CVS repository (gdb-ui.el) that I have written > (based on gdba.el by Tom Lord and Jim Kingdon) that uses annotation level 2. > I did try to use GDB/MI when I started writing it but gave up because it > wasn't complete at the time (March/April last year). There was some discussion > on the mailing list and I felt that the folks working on the Eclipse project > became similarly disillusioned (I think that they might also currently use > annotation level 2). Additionally there was a debate about whether the command > line interface would be suported through GDB/MI as Richard Stallman was > anxious to keep the GUD buffer. Also, I think that DDD uses annotation level 1. > > I had presumed that development on annotations had ceased and not that it > would be taken out. It has appeared quite robust to me and Andrew Cagney has > said as much. It would be a shame to lose it before GDB/MI has gained proven > acceptance. > > Anyway, I'm sure that Richard will have something further to add. > > Jim Blandy writes: > > > > 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? > > > > Some background: the 'set annotate' command sets the > > 'annotation_level' variable. There are only three distinguished > > values for this variable: > > > > 0: nothing special, GDB behaves normally. > > 1: in source.c:line_info and stack.c:print_frame_info, when we print > > the source line, we print out something extra that helps Emacs pop > > up the source code in a window. > > 2 or greater: we enable around 250 calls to a variety of functions in > > annotate.c to mark and identify lots of things GDB prints. > > > > I think we should keep level 1, since the standard Emacs GDB interface > > uses it, and it's not very much code. > > > > I'd like to see GDB dump level 2, since it duplicates MI, badly. MI's > > design ensures that whoever's trying to parse GDB's output gets > > something that's well-formed, whereas annotate just sticks escape > > codes into the outgoing stream of text. This means that, if you > > change the way anything prints, you may break an annotate level 2 > > client. But to break an MI client, you actually have to change a > > ui_out call, whose sole purpose is to produce output for clients to > > read. So MI is a much more maintainable approach, because it's easier > > for people to see what they're doing. > > > > If folks agree that annotate level 2 should go, we could: > > - announce that annotate level 2 will be disabled in the release after > > next; > > - in that release, disable the code, but leave it there, to see if > > anyone complains, and whether they can be persuaded to switch to MI; > > and > > - in the release after that, if all goes well, remove the code to > > support annotation level 2. > > > > Personally, I'd like to see Emacs switch from annotation level 1 to > > MI, too; then we could get rid of annotation altogether. But I think > > it makes sense to tackle level 2 first, since I don't think it has > > many users (if any). > > > > > --==-=-= Content-length: 1084 Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 12:16:12 -0500 From: Richard Stallman To: Andrew Cagney CC: hilfingr@CS.Berkeley.edu, vincent@waw.com, jimb@redhat.com, cagney@redhat.com, jtc@acorntoolworks.com, dewar@gnat.com, klee@apple.com, shebs@apple.com, toddpw@toddpw.org, nick@nick.uklinux.net, rms@gnu.org Subject: Re: obsoleting the annotate level 2 interface Message-Id: References: <15917.39229.935851.920452@nick.uklinux.net> <3E301D28.3060504@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-length: 424 GDB developers are working to resolve all known issues with MI that would block EMACS(1). We really don't want to be in a situtation where we're forced to prop up the level two annotations. I support the goal of making Emacs use MI, but it may take some time before this works, since it requires changes in GDB and bigger changes in Emacs. Please don't drop support for the annotations until this works. --==-=-= Content-length: 2191 Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 12:00:59 -0500 From: Andrew Cagney To: rms@gnu.org Cc: hilfingr@CS.Berkeley.edu, vincent@waw.com, jimb@redhat.com, cagney@redhat.com, jtc@acorntoolworks.com, dewar@gnat.com, klee@apple.com, shebs@apple.com, toddpw@toddpw.org, nick@nick.uklinux.net Subject: Re: obsoleting the annotate level 2 interface Message-ID: <3E3565CB.1040706@redhat.com> References: <15917.39229.935851.920452@nick.uklinux.net> <3E301D28.3060504@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-length: 1533 > GDB developers are working to resolve all known issues with MI that > would block EMACS(1). We really don't want to be in a situtation where > we're forced to prop up the level two annotations. > > I support the goal of making Emacs use MI, but it may take some time > before this works, since it requires changes in GDB and bigger changes > in Emacs. Please don't drop support for the annotations until this > works. My understanding is: - To the best of my knowledge, all previous versions of EMACS use GDB's level-one annotations. - This new (unreleased?) EMACS debug mode is different. It is using level-two annotations even though GDB has deprecated support for this. - JimB's proposal was to continue providing level-one annotations (and hence allow existing EMACS releases to work) but obsolete (and eventually remove) level-two annotations. Supporting level-two annotations will involve an ongoing commitment of GDB developer resources (something we're sadly lacking). I think those developer resources would be far better spent improving GDB's support of features such as Java, C++ and threads, and the far more powerful / robust / tested MI interface. Consequently, I don't think it is reasonable to have GDB commit to supporting level-two annotations (something GDB has already deprecated) until the new EMACS mode is working with MI. I believe that GDB should obsolete (and schedule the removal of) level-two annotations the moment the remaining MI work is completed. Andrew --==-=-=-- --=-=-=--