Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> writes: > On Tue, 7 Feb 2023 at 15:56, Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com> wrote: >> > (3) what should we do about the HMP StatusInfo object? >> > I'm not sure how we handle compatibility for HMP. >> >> Uh, you mean *QMP*, don't you? > > Yes. > >> As you wrote above, StatusInfo is returned by query-status, which is a >> stable interface. Changes to members therefore require the usual >> deprecation grace period. We'd add a new member with a sane name, and >> deprecate the old one. > > Question: is it worth creating a new 'one-insn-per-tb' member at all, > or should we instead just make the 'singlestep' member optional and > then stop emitting it (and as a corollary stop reporting it in > HMP 'info status')? It seems kind of weird that we surface this > specific slightly esoteric accelerator property and only this one > in the StatusInfo struct.
Making a mandatory member of QMP output optional is an incompatible change. Not necessary here. If you think the value is not worth reporting, deprecate @singlestep in QMP, and drop it after a grace period. You can drop it from HMP right away, or together with QMP.
