From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19491 invoked by alias); 6 Jun 2008 01:03:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 19477 invoked by uid 22791); 6 Jun 2008 01:03:51 -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 01:03:22 +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 512793DA5E5; Fri, 6 Jun 2008 13:03:15 +1200 (NZST) Received: by kahikatea.snap.net.nz (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 4029B8FC6D; Fri, 6 Jun 2008 13:02:56 +1200 (NZST) From: Nick Roberts MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <18504.36031.91267.352783@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2008 01:03:00 -0000 To: Joel Brobecker Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] Another annotation for threads In-Reply-To: <20080605220208.GA3602@adacore.com> 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> <20080605220208.GA3602@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: 2008-06/txt/msg00090.txt.bz2 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