From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1191 invoked by alias); 11 May 2008 22:03:07 -0000 Received: (qmail 1179 invoked by uid 22791); 11 May 2008 22:03:06 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from viper.snap.net.nz (HELO viper.snap.net.nz) (202.37.101.25) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sun, 11 May 2008 22:02:40 +0000 Received: from kahikatea.snap.net.nz (141.31.255.123.static.snap.net.nz [123.255.31.141]) by viper.snap.net.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id B42CA3D9D98; Mon, 12 May 2008 10:02:32 +1200 (NZST) Received: by kahikatea.snap.net.nz (Postfix, from userid 1000) id B587B8FC6D; Mon, 12 May 2008 10:02:27 +1200 (NZST) From: Nick Roberts MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <18471.27891.225239.186380@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> Date: Sun, 11 May 2008 22:33:00 -0000 To: Joel Brobecker Cc: Vladimir Prus , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] Report the main thread. In-Reply-To: <20080511155232.GH28890@adacore.com> References: <18469.39280.284106.858072@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <18470.7609.400548.29643@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <20080511155232.GH28890@adacore.com> X-Mailer: VM 7.19 under Emacs 22.2.50.2 X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2008-05/txt/msg00370.txt.bz2 > There has been a discussion earlier about the merits and drawbacks > of adding the main "thread" to the list of threads when debugging > an application that doesn't use threads. We only considered the > perspective of the user, but there is indeed the case of front-ends. > Assuming that the decision still stands, I think it is reasonable > to ask the front-ends to check that there is more than one thread > before going into "thread" mode. I understand that this is making > things a little more complicated, but it shouldn't be that hard. > > On the other hand, if there is a way to detect that the new "thread" > is from an unthreaded program, we could decide to not emit the > notification. But I would like things to be consistent - it should > be the same for both CLI, MI and annotations. CLI and MI are both interpreters. Annotations are just a markup of CLI output, so I don't think they should be considered equally. I don't see the need to report the main thread but if Pedro and Vladimir do, then I'm happy to live with that. If I propose an annotation that doesn't report the main thread, then since they won't be using it, I would expect that they won't object. Furthermore, since annotations would never be used with MI and they are destined for removal anyway, trying to make them consistent seems a pointless exercise. -- Nick http://www.inet.net.nz/~nickrob