Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 21:03:02 +0300
From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Sender: halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il
To: jimb AT redhat DOT com
Message-Id: <7458-Tue21Jan2003210302+0200-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
X-Mailer: emacs 21.3.50 (via feedmail 8 I) and Blat ver 1.8.9
CC: gdb AT sources DOT redhat DOT com, djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: <vt265sjj6vi.fsf@zenia.red-bean.com> (message from Jim Blandy on
	21 Jan 2003 02:32:01 -0500)
Subject: Re: obsoleting the annotate level 2 interface
References:  <vt265sjj6vi DOT fsf AT zenia DOT red-bean DOT com>
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

> From: Jim Blandy <jimb AT redhat DOT com>
> Date: 21 Jan 2003 02:32:01 -0500
> 
> GDB seems to support two different ways of doing detailed annotations
> of its output for consumption by other programs: MI and 'set annotate
> 2'.  I don't think annotation level 2 has many active users, if any at
> all.  It pervades GDB's code.  Would it make sense to put 'set
> annotate 2' on the path to obsolescence?

It's possible that RHIDE, the Turbo-C compatible IDE developed for
DJGPP, uses "annotate 2" (RHIDE has the GDB core built into it).  I CC
the DJGPP developers' mailing list, in the hope that someone who knows
more than myself about the debugging engine of RHIDE will tell whether
I'm wrong.