From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31295 invoked by alias); 6 Jun 2008 06:59:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 31284 invoked by uid 22791); 6 Jun 2008 06:59:40 -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; Fri, 06 Jun 2008 06:59:13 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4F7C2A9737; Fri, 6 Jun 2008 02:59:11 -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 V1N8qGWEgJ0I; Fri, 6 Jun 2008 02:59:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71F2C2A9625; Fri, 6 Jun 2008 02:59:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 4AD8CE7ACD; Thu, 5 Jun 2008 23:59:09 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2008 06:59:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Nick Roberts Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] Another annotation for threads Message-ID: <20080606065909.GC3602@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> <20080605220208.GA3602@adacore.com> <18504.36031.91267.352783@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <18504.36031.91267.352783@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> 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/msg00103.txt.bz2 > It might be construed as bad attitude but I don't really understand why > there is so much concern about such a small change that will only impact > thosee who use GDB from Emacs. I don't personally consider this bad attitude, as you had some technical arguments in favor of your approach. I balanced the various advantages and drawbacks of both approaches, and judged that, although I would have still prefered us to use observers, your approach was an acceptable temporary compromise (temporary meaning until annotation are removed). One of the elements on which I based my judgement was the fact that I understood that this was going to be the only new annotation. > A while ago (three years actually) I submitted a patch to remove far more > markup than I am adding: > > http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2005-06/msg00189.html > > but there was no interest. > > It started from a dialogue with Andrew Cagney to relieve some of the > pressure to remove the remaining annotations but only drew a response > from Bob Rossi. I think we concluded that the breakpoints-invalid and > frames-invalid annotations could go. So I'll offer now to submit > another patch just to remove those twoannotations (which fired far too > often, anyway). This should more than make up for the two I've just > added. My perspective on this is that I would like to see as little effort spent on annotations as possible. If you think the change is going to make GDB better, then perhaps your suggestion is worth it. If it's just to reduce the pressure to remove annotations from GDB, then I think we need to look at the maintenance cost of keeping them in. If possible, I'd rather remove them all in one go rather than remove some of them in exchange for the new ones being added. I don't know the annotations well enough to know what the actual impact might be. They might make GDB better. But I'm quite concerned about the front ends out there that might be relying on some the annotations that are proposed to be removed. -- Joel