From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25497 invoked by alias); 14 Jun 2008 22:05:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 25486 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Jun 2008 22:05:14 -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; Sat, 14 Jun 2008 22:04:47 +0000 Received: from kahikatea.snap.net.nz (235.60.255.123.dynamic.snap.net.nz [123.255.60.235]) by viper.snap.net.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 032AE3DA5B2; Sun, 15 Jun 2008 10:04:44 +1200 (NZST) Received: by kahikatea.snap.net.nz (Postfix, from userid 1000) id EAD238FC6D; Sun, 15 Jun 2008 10:04:36 +1200 (NZST) From: Nick Roberts MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <18516.16499.732319.353988@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2008 00:44:00 -0000 To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: Vladimir Prus , Pedro Alves , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [patch:MI] Observer for thread-changed In-Reply-To: <20080614191328.GA11666@caradoc.them.org> References: <18509.7945.19078.399646@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <200806101027.38454.ghost@cs.msu.su> <20080610132512.GB7986@caradoc.them.org> <200806141909.37719.ghost@cs.msu.su> <20080614191328.GA11666@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/msg00271.txt.bz2 > > In other words, I argue for notification to be designed with the view of > > what frontend is supposed to do with it, not with what internal detail of > > GDB is been reported. > > This is a good principle, but it's not right either. Reporting the > internal state of GDB is bad design, but reporting based on what > frontends are supposed to do is also bad design: it assumes that you > can think of everything a frontend might want to do. We need to > report logical interface events based on GDB's state. I agree. I don't think that we should second guess what front ends will do. I think the role of MI is to provide a mechanism to report the state of GDB and the inferior, not to provide a policy. The front end developer can then filter out information that he doesn't need. However he can't factor in information that GDB developers leave out because they consider it's not needed. -- Nick http://www.inet.net.nz/~nickrob