Re: [PATCH] Another annotation for threads

[Nick Roberts <nickrob@snap.net.nz>]

 > > If this patch is OK, I will submit a similar one for MI using an observer.
 > 
 > It's quite likely that I've gotten turned around in all the discussion
 > while I was away, and you've already answered this.  But here's my
 > question anyway: if there's going to be an observer to do this in MI,
 > why shouldn't annotate.c use the same observer to call
 > annotate_thread_changed?

For the same reason that the "new-thread" annotation was eventually done
without annotations: GDB/MI developers might decide to call it at other
locations.

Also it means it has the same idiom as all the other annotations and, on it's
own, it's a simple change that's not very intrusive.

-- 
Nick                                           http://www.inet.net.nz/~nickrob