From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Gdb in emacs 24 Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 13:54:56 -0400 Message-ID: References: <87k481gma9.fsf@ginnungagap.bsc.es> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1319046924 22817 80.91.229.12 (19 Oct 2011 17:55:24 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 17:55:24 +0000 (UTC) Cc: David Reitter , =?iso-8859-1?Q?Llu=EDs?= , "emacs-devel@gnu.org devel" To: Tom Tromey Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Oct 19 19:55:20 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RGaMH-0001HQ-Au for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 19:55:17 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:55559 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RGaMG-0001p1-Mh for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 13:55:16 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:45006) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RGaM8-0001m2-Cz for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 13:55:13 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RGaM2-0006oH-1Y for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 13:55:08 -0400 Original-Received: from pruche.dit.umontreal.ca ([132.204.246.22]:34489) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RGaM1-0006nR-V2 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 13:55:02 -0400 Original-Received: from faina.iro.umontreal.ca (lechon.iro.umontreal.ca [132.204.27.242]) by pruche.dit.umontreal.ca (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id p9JHsrGq003093; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 13:54:53 -0400 Original-Received: by faina.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix, from userid 20848) id EABFC130010; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 13:54:56 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: (Tom Tromey's message of "Wed, 19 Oct 2011 08:54:01 -0600") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.90 (gnu/linux) X-NAI-Spam-Flag: NO X-NAI-Spam-Threshold: 5 X-NAI-Spam-Score: 0 X-NAI-Spam-Rules: 1 Rules triggered RV4015=0 X-NAI-Spam-Version: 2.2.0.9286 : core <4015> : streams <693220> : uri <987203> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 132.204.246.22 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:145347 Archived-At: Stefan> How 'bout some way to just check whether `mi' is the Stefan> current interpreter. It doesn't have to be a dedicated command, just Stefan> a command which will reliably behave differently (e.g. return some Stefan> recognizable value if `mi' is used, and return an error if not). > Pretty much any MI command will do that, e.g., "-list-features". Then could someone patch gdb-mi.el to use this as a test and send a clear error message to the user about the need for "-i=mi"? I think it's too late to use "interpreter exec" for 24.1, but such a test would at least address some of the bug reports I've seen where users had used "--annotate=3". Stefan