From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23079 invoked by alias); 12 Mar 2008 03:27:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 23071 invoked by uid 22791); 12 Mar 2008 03:27:17 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (65.74.133.4) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 12 Mar 2008 03:26:59 +0000 Received: (qmail 16415 invoked from network); 12 Mar 2008 03:26:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO orlando) (pedro@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 12 Mar 2008 03:26:55 -0000 From: Pedro Alves To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Don't paginate "new thread" events Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 03:27:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 (enterprise 0.20070907.709405) References: <200803120149.11929.pedro@codesourcery.com> <20080312030129.GA3738@adacore.com> In-Reply-To: <20080312030129.GA3738@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200803120327.24006.pedro@codesourcery.com> 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: 2008-03/txt/msg00121.txt.bz2 A Wednesday 12 March 2008 03:01:29, Joel Brobecker wrote: > I think the centralization just caused more messages to printed > compared to before, but that's just a guess. Perhaps, you could > check an older debugger (before the notification was centralized > inside "add_thread", for instance 6.7.1) with a much smaller terminal > height, and see if you get the same kind of issues... > I did check with an old debugger, but both systems I have access to, linux and cygwin, used printf_unfiltered before. I can only expect that on the other systems, the user is getting a SIGTTOU, and nobody has bothered to complain. > However, I tend to agree that having these notifications be > paginated can be annoying. I support the change below, but > I'd like to have other's opinion. Based on the analysis above, > your patch would be introducing a change of behavior, so a > consensus on its usefulness would be nice... Thanks for taking a look! -- Pedro Alves