This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: MI handshaking
- From: Bob Rossi <bob at brasko dot net>
- To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
- Cc: Andrew Cagney <cagney at gnu dot org>, alain at qnx dot com, nick at nick dot uklinux dot net,gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 09:48:30 -0500
- Subject: Re: MI handshaking
- References: <200411120344.WAA24018@smtp.ott.qnx.com> <41953FDA.7030708@gnu.org> <01c4c95e$Blat.v2.2.2$f59e0820@zahav.net.il>
On Sat, Nov 13, 2004 at 10:57:33AM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 17:57:30 -0500
> > From: Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org>
> > Cc: Bob Rossi <bob@brasko.net>, Nick Roberts <nick@nick.uklinux.net>,
> > gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
> >
> > > =mi-handshake,versions=[mi1,mi2,mi3],stable=[mi2]
> >
> > Yes, thanks for the correction with ``=''. But not
> > ``versions=[mi1,mi2,mi3]'' that's too much and misleading information.
> >
> > I think the objective here needs to be to provide as much information as
> > possible about what version of GDB and MI is running. Hence the:
> >
> > version="mi2"
> >
> > (where hopefully VERSION version is a member of STABLE :-)
>
> We've been through this discussion, and the only suggestion that
> brought a consensus was to print all the supported MI versions, not
> just one. Let's not reopen that discussion again, even if the result
> looks ``too much and misleading''. (Why ``misleading'', btw?)
Yeah, anyways it doesn't really matter for now. GDB only supports one
version, and I have a feeling it will stay that way for a long time.
Bob Rossi