Re: [PATCH] Another annotation for threads

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

Joel Brobecker writes:
 > > > 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 the patch is OK.
 > 
 > FWIW, neither was I when we had the discussion of the new-thread annotation.
 > I eventually let it go because I thought that this was an isolated addition
 > and because it helped simplifying the emacs front-end. Sounds like I was
 > wrong about being an isolated addition :-(.

It might be construed as bad attitude but I don't really understand why
there is so much concern about such a small change that will only impact
thosee who use GDB from Emacs.

A while ago (three years actually) I submitted a patch to remove far more
markup than I am adding:

http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2005-06/msg00189.html

but there was no interest.  

It started from a dialogue with Andrew Cagney to relieve some of the pressure
to remove the remaining annotations but only drew a response from Bob Rossi.  I
think we concluded that the breakpoints-invalid and frames-invalid annotations
could go.  So I'll offer now to submit another patch just to remove those
twoannotations (which fired far too often, anyway).  This should more than make
up for the two I've just added.

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