This is the mail archive of the gdb@sourceware.org mailing list for the GDB project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: Multiexec MI broke MI compatibility?

From: Frederic Riss <frederic dot riss at gmail dot com>
To: Marc Khouzam <marc dot khouzam at ericsson dot com>
Cc: Vladimir Prus <ghost at cs dot msu dot su>, "gdb at sources dot redhat dot com" <gdb at sources dot redhat dot com>
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 10:11:41 +0200
Subject: Re: Multiexec MI broke MI compatibility?
References: <t2v87d3b2041004120629nde1ed98btdec46649d6206bb6@mail.gmail.com> <hq27jo$g3a$1@dough.gmane.org> <F7CE05678329534C957159168FA70DEC524451BF12@EUSAACMS0703.eamcs.ericsson.se> <4BC4C884.8060701@cs.msu.su> <F7CE05678329534C957159168FA70DEC5243D4FC19@EUSAACMS0703.eamcs.ericsson.se>

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

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).

Thanks!
Fred

References:
- Multiexec MI broke MI compatibility?
  - From: Frederic Riss
- Re: Multiexec MI broke MI compatibility?
  - From: Vladimir Prus
- RE: Multiexec MI broke MI compatibility?
  - From: Marc Khouzam
- Re: Multiexec MI broke MI compatibility?
  - From: Vladimir Prus
- RE: Multiexec MI broke MI compatibility?
  - From: Marc Khouzam

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]