From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21598 invoked by alias); 6 Jun 2008 00:50:14 -0000 Received: (qmail 21589 invoked by uid 22791); 6 Jun 2008 00:50:13 -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; Fri, 06 Jun 2008 00:49:43 +0000 Received: from kahikatea.snap.net.nz (246.61.255.123.dynamic.snap.net.nz [123.255.61.246]) by viper.snap.net.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C4BF3DA687; Fri, 6 Jun 2008 12:49:40 +1200 (NZST) Received: by kahikatea.snap.net.nz (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 4BC5E8FC6D; Fri, 6 Jun 2008 12:49:21 +1200 (NZST) From: Nick Roberts MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <18504.35208.397231.7949@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2008 00:50:00 -0000 To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] Another annotation for threads In-Reply-To: <20080605212615.GA6969@caradoc.them.org> References: <18483.36546.101715.670386@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <20080605193017.GF25085@caradoc.them.org> <18504.22662.394416.990603@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <20080605212615.GA6969@caradoc.them.org> 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: 2008-06/txt/msg00088.txt.bz2 Daniel Jacobowitz writes: > On Fri, Jun 06, 2008 at 09:20:06AM +1200, Nick Roberts wrote: > > > > 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. > > I don't find that very convincing, ... But that's exactly what did happen. Shortly after I submitted a patch for the "new-thread" annotation which used the new_thread observer, the observer was moved to report the main thread. It's pragmatic argument rather than technical one. I have no control over MI development and Vladimir has stated on several occasions that MI considerations are paramount. ... but the patch is OK. Committed. Thanks. -- Nick http://www.inet.net.nz/~nickrob