This is the mail archive of the
gdb@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
RE: Multiexec MI broke MI compatibility?
- From: Vladimir Prus <vladimir at codesourcery dot com>
- To: gdb at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Sat, 05 Jun 2010 09:16:03 +0400
- Subject: RE: Multiexec MI broke MI compatibility?
- Connect(): No such file or directory
- Followup-to: gmane.comp.gdb.devel
- References: <t2t87d3b2041004140111x64858789wdcde9f69ca40c343@mail.gmail.com> <F7CE05678329534C957159168FA70DEC53ACFAC64D@EUSAACMS0703.eamcs.ericsson.se>
Marc Khouzam wrote:
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Frederic Riss [mailto:frederic.riss@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 4:12 AM
>> To: Marc Khouzam
>> Cc: Vladimir Prus; gdb@sources.redhat.com
>> Subject: Re: Multiexec MI broke MI compatibility?
>>
>> Hi!
>>
>> On 13 April 2010 22:33, Marc Khouzam
>> <marc.khouzam@ericsson.com> wrote:
>> >>> 797,748 10-list-thread-groups i1
>> >>> 797,748 10^error,msg="invalid group id 'i1'"
>> <-------------- when we ask for the same is, GDB rejects it
>> >>> 797,749 (gdb)
>> >>
>> >> This sounds like a bug indeed. Can you file an issue?
>> >
>> > I'm hoping Frederic can do that since he knows the proper details.
>>
>> Done here:
>> http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11499
>
> As there are discussions for an earlier release of 7.2,
> I wanted to mention this regression.
> I think this is something that should be fixed before 7.2.
Yes, working on that now.
>
>> This leaves the question of whether the thread-group-created
>> notification name change was appropriate (From a backward
>> compatibility POV, not from a pure 'it makes sense' angle).
>
> As for this, is the plan to keep the change or to revert?
The plan is to keep the change, sorry.
- Volodya