From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32539 invoked by alias); 5 Jun 2008 21:26:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 32531 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Jun 2008 21:26:37 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 05 Jun 2008 21:26:18 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE70398371; Thu, 5 Jun 2008 21:26:15 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C47579809F; Thu, 5 Jun 2008 21:26:15 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1K4MyN-0001om-3L; Thu, 05 Jun 2008 17:26:15 -0400 Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2008 21:26:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Nick Roberts Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] Another annotation for threads Message-ID: <20080605212615.GA6969@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Nick Roberts , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <18483.36546.101715.670386@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <20080605193017.GF25085@caradoc.them.org> <18504.22662.394416.990603@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <18504.22662.394416.990603@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2008-05-11) 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/msg00080.txt.bz2 On Fri, Jun 06, 2008 at 09:20:06AM +1200, Nick Roberts wrote: > > > If this patch is OK, I will submit a similar one for MI using an observer. > > > > It's quite likely that I've gotten turned around in all the discussion > > while I was away, and you've already answered this. But here's my > > question anyway: if there's going to be an observer to do this in MI, > > why shouldn't annotate.c use the same observer to call > > annotate_thread_changed? > > 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. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery