RE: Multiexec MI broke MI compatibility?

[Marc Khouzam <marc dot khouzam at ericsson dot com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: gdb-owner@sourceware.org 
> [mailto:gdb-owner@sourceware.org] On Behalf Of Vladimir Prus
> Sent: Saturday, June 05, 2010 1:16 AM
> To: gdb@sources.redhat.com
> Subject: RE: Multiexec MI broke MI compatibility?
> 
> 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.

Thanks, I saw that it is now fixed.
I'll give it a spin with DSF-GDB next week.

> >> 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.

Ok, I'll put a check for both formats in DSF-GDB.
Of course, any frontend that decides to makes use of the 
thread-group-created/started will need to be careful if they
want to also support GDB 7.0 and GDB 7.1.

Marc