Re: Bob's MI objective

[Andrew Cagney <cagney at gnu dot org>]

C'mon Bob, it's the Canadian thanksgiving long weekend!  Strewth!

> 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?

> > > 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.

> > >    * 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.

Andrew