Re: GDB/MI snapshots between major release's

[Bob Rossi <bob at brasko dot net>]

On Sun, Oct 03, 2004 at 02:40:36PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 03, 2004 at 02:36:18PM -0400, Bob Rossi wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 03, 2004 at 11:00:30AM -0700, Felix Lee wrote:
> > > Bob Rossi <bob@brasko.net>:
> > > > How should front end developers deal with snapshots of GDB, that are
> > > > taken between major versions of GDB. Several distributions
> > > 
> > > I think you're overthinking this.  if some version of gdb doesn't
> > > fulfill the compatibility guarantee, then it's a bug in gdb, and
> > > it shouldn't be hard to have the user install a gdb version
> > > without the bug.  at worst, you can supply your own version of
> > > gdb.  few things depend on specific gdb version.  it's not a big
> > > deal to have multiple gdb versions installed.  source code
> > > availability means you don't have to wait for the gdb cabal to
> > > fix it, and the cabal is generally eager to take reasonable
> > > bugfixes, which solves the long-term problem.
> > 
> > I would say that I am not overthinking it, I am simply thinking about
> > it. I want to make sure that CVS snapshots will support a valid MI
> > interface. Major distro's use these snapshots, and I would like to have
> > compatibility with them.
> 
> So, use the last frozen MI version supported by that snapshot?

Yes, that's what I was thinking also. Is that what is expected? Finally,
this idea along with this new command line argument,
http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb/2004-10/msg00027.html

I would be able to figure out the last stable version of MI is and use it,
even when it is a CVS snapshot. 

Does this sound correct? I figure the command line argument
--mi-protocols will only output the versions of MI that were released as
stable ( for a release ).

This would solve several important problem for me.

Thanks,
Bob Rossi