Re: [RFA]: Fix for pending breakpoints in manually loaded/unloaded shlibs

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>]

On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 04:42:24PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> >>Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 12:57:54 -0400
> >>>From: Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org>
> >>>
> >>>Right.  In addition to the breakpoints, the MI needs to know about these 
> >>>identical events (so that it can notify the gui of an shlib unload).
> >
> >
> >Not that I'm against this, but perhaps instead of implementing a core
> >GDB feature based on the observers (which, as far as I understand,
> >were invented for a different purpose), we should talk about two
> >separate changes: one that adds the observer, and another that fixes
> >the problem reported by Jeff.
> 
> Um, observers were introduced for this purpose - make it possible for 
> anything, core or peripheral, to monitor changes in the inferior/GDB. 
> Otherwize we end up with things like this.
> 
> 	observer_notify_solib_unloaded (...);
> 	breakpoint_notify_solib_unloaded (...);
> 
> I'm currently investigating gdb.threads/static.exp failures and to fix 
> that I think I'll need to add a further observer event.

Really?  I think thread-db needs to try to initialize at two points:
whenever a new shared library is loaded (converting the objfile hook to
an observer would be nice, but independent) and whenever an inferior is
created (conveniently we've got an observer for this already).

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz