This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: MI handshaking
- From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz at gnu dot org>
- To: Andrew Cagney <cagney at gnu dot org>
- Cc: alain at qnx dot com, bob at brasko dot net, nick at nick dot uklinux dot net, gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 10:57:33 +0200
- Subject: Re: MI handshaking
- References: <200411120344.WAA24018@smtp.ott.qnx.com> <41953FDA.7030708@gnu.org>
- Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
> Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 17:57:30 -0500
> From: Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org>
> Cc: Bob Rossi <bob@brasko.net>, Nick Roberts <nick@nick.uklinux.net>,
> gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
>
> > =mi-handshake,versions=[mi1,mi2,mi3],stable=[mi2]
>
> Yes, thanks for the correction with ``=''. But not
> ``versions=[mi1,mi2,mi3]'' that's too much and misleading information.
>
> I think the objective here needs to be to provide as much information as
> possible about what version of GDB and MI is running. Hence the:
>
> version="mi2"
>
> (where hopefully VERSION version is a member of STABLE :-)
We've been through this discussion, and the only suggestion that
brought a consensus was to print all the supported MI versions, not
just one. Let's not reopen that discussion again, even if the result
looks ``too much and misleading''. (Why ``misleading'', btw?)
> although strictly speaking it should probably be:
>
> mi-version="mi2"
Yes, mi-version is better, IMO.