Re: [rfa:doco] Zap mi1 reference

[Andrew Cagney <cagney at gnu dot org>]

> If I was to write an MI module for libtgdb, do you see that working for
> only gdb 6.0? Would I then have to write a MI2 module for 6.1? I would
> hope that my MI1 library would work with both GDB 6.0,6.1. Is this a
> quality the MI protocol is going to sustain? and that an MI2 module
> would only allow for more functionality, or more of something.
>
>
> > - using frame ID's with varobj
> > - N:M breakpoints
> > will impact significantly on the MI interface.
>
>
> Will this break all MI1 front end clients?

To turn the problem around, clients that don't exploit the new 
mechanisms are, by definition, already broken :-/

For instance without a frame ID it isn't possible for varobj to 
correctly identify a frame.  This means that when your existing code 
tries to debug frameless i386 backtraces it's going to fail in wierd and 
wonderful ways (typically by selecting the wrong frame).  Only by by 
identifying frames using a frame ID will your code be able to work robustly.

Andrew