Re: Bob's MI objective

[Bob Rossi <bob at brasko dot net>]

On Sun, Oct 10, 2004 at 10:56:49PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> C'mon Bob, it's the Canadian thanksgiving long weekend!  Strewth!

hehe, thanks for answering my questions! I'm just excited about getting
things working, that's all.

> >On Fri, Oct 08, 2004 at 06:10:26PM -0400, Bob Rossi wrote:
> >
> >>>On Fri, Oct 08, 2004 at 05:35:22PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> >>
> >>>>> @samp{--interpreter=mi} (or @samp{--interpreter=mi2}) causes
> >>>>> @value{GDBN} to use the @dfn{@sc{gdb/mi} interface} (@pxref{GDB/MI, ,
> >>>>> The @sc{gdb/mi} Interface}) included since @var{GDBN} version 6.0.  
> >>>>The
> >>>>> previous @sc{gdb/mi} interface, included in @value{GDBN} version 5.3 
> >>>>and
> >>>>> selected with @samp{--interpreter=mi1}, is deprecated.  Earlier
> >>>>> @sc{gdb/mi} interfaces are no longer supported.
> 
> ... and it is lifted straight from the manual.  That you did read the 
> manual right?

Yes, i did, thanks.

> >>>This is basically what I need to know. I've asked several times and
> >>>would very much appreciate an answer from the people that are capable of
> >>>giving it. (The answer could be a simple yes or no)
> 
> >>>   * Will GDB support at least one stable MI protocol for an official 
> >>>   release?
> >>>   (This answer is obviously "yes", and does not have to be answered)
> >>>   * Will GDB support more than one stable MI protocols for an official 
> >>>   release?
> 
> In the past GDB tested both mi1 and mi2 so that that stage they were 
> probably described as "supported".  Now that only mi2 is tested, nad mi1 
> is deprecated, your call.

Yes, and if MI3 were created, MI2 would probably stick around for a
while, or at least until the release, right?

> >>>   * Will GDB support one stable MI protocol for a CVS snapshot?
> 
> The above does, right?
> 
> >>>   * Will GDB support more than one stable MI protocols for a CVS 
> >>>   snapshot?
> 
> Who knows,
> 
> I still don't see the point of all this, in particular, if you're going 
> to implement a library, why it has to be kept separate to GDB?
> 
> And as others have pointed out, you're creating a problem when there 
> isn't one.

I feel like Kerry, and everyone keeps calling me a flip flopper :)

Listen, there is a reason I need to know. I am trying to solve the
problem of probing GDB from a front end to determine what
version/versions of MI a particular version of GDB supports.

If GDB is only going to support 1 stable MI protocol, then GDB can
simply output the protocol that it supports when it is started up. There
is no reason to "probe" it, it can just tell the front end what protocol
it speaks.

However, if it can use multiple MI versions, then a handshake algorithm
must take place. Basically, GDB starts up saying that it can speak
several different protocols, and then the front end picks one, and then
GDB uses that protocol.

The implementation is easier for the first case. However, I think the
second case is necessary.

Bob Rossi