From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17425 invoked by alias); 6 Jun 2008 02:30:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 17414 invoked by uid 22791); 6 Jun 2008 02:30:29 -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; Fri, 06 Jun 2008 02:30:02 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B94C898371; Fri, 6 Jun 2008 02:29:59 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B85A9809F; Fri, 6 Jun 2008 02:29:59 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1K4RiI-000635-MJ; Thu, 05 Jun 2008 22:29:58 -0400 Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2008 02:30:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Tom Tromey Cc: Nick Roberts , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] Another annotation for threads Message-ID: <20080606022958.GA23233@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Tom Tromey , 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> <20080605212615.GA6969@caradoc.them.org> <18504.35208.397231.7949@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: 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/msg00094.txt.bz2 On Thu, Jun 05, 2008 at 07:06:16PM -0600, Tom Tromey wrote: > Is this how things "ought" to work? I mean ideally? Yes. But there was disagreement over when a particular observer ought to be called. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery