Re: [PATCH] Another annotation for threads

Nick Roberts
2008-06-06T00:50:14Z

Daniel Jacobowitz writes:
> 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 that's exactly what did happen. Shortly after I submitted a patch for the
"new-thread" annotation which used the new_thread observer, the observer was
moved to report the main thread. It's pragmatic argument rather than technical
one. I have no control over MI development and Vladimir has stated on several
occasions that MI considerations are paramount.

... but the patch is OK.

Committed. Thanks.

--
Nick http://www.inet.net.nz/~nickrob