Re: MI changes

[Andrew Cagney <cagney at gnu dot org>]

> Hi,
>
> Could I please have a response to this topic? I am being held up on the
> development of my project while waiting for this decision.

I think others have already responded to this proposal with a clear 
rationale for not making a change.  We've already got numeric prefixes 
which are returned with the command result.  Asynchronous output has to 
be self contained.

Andrew

> I propose several changes to MI.
>
>    1. Every MI output command is prefixed with a label saying what type
>    of command it is. This is easy for synchronous commands. We will have
>    to make a list of asynchronous MI output commands that can be
>    documented some where.
>
>       benefit: the front end knows how to deal with the data it was
>       given in all circumstances
>
>    2. Because of this new label, all MI output commands of it's type
>    will be backwards compatible. Only adding fields and such things are
>    allowed. If it is necessary to change the command, a new MI command
>    and label will be put in it's place.
>
>       benefit: front ends will be very reliable because they will work
>       with new and old GDB's. They will also work with snapshot of GDB
>       instead of only major releases.
>
> BTW, this Email does not address MI input commands in any way. This will
> be the next step on my list.
>
> Thanks,
> Bob Rossi