From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19755 invoked by alias); 5 Jun 2008 22:02:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 19746 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Jun 2008 22:02:40 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 05 Jun 2008 22:02:13 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06F412A971A; Thu, 5 Jun 2008 18:02:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id nNvECmYnGNam; Thu, 5 Jun 2008 18:02:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD65D2A9700; Thu, 5 Jun 2008 18:02:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 2220EE7ACD; Thu, 5 Jun 2008 15:02:08 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2008 22:02:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Nick Roberts , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] Another annotation for threads Message-ID: <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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080605212615.GA6969@caradoc.them.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i 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/msg00084.txt.bz2 > > 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 :-(. -- Joel