From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1689 invoked by alias); 10 Jun 2008 02:46:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 1678 invoked by uid 22791); 10 Jun 2008 02:46:52 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (65.74.133.4) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 10 Jun 2008 02:46:35 +0000 Received: (qmail 22861 invoked from network); 10 Jun 2008 02:46:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO orlando.local) (pedro@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 10 Jun 2008 02:46:33 -0000 From: Pedro Alves To: Nick Roberts Subject: Re: [patch:MI] Observer for thread-changed Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 03:13:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9 Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, ghost@cs.msu.su References: <18509.7945.19078.399646@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <200806100104.28694.pedro@codesourcery.com> <18509.57602.879804.675918@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> In-Reply-To: <18509.57602.879804.675918@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200806100346.33522.pedro@codesourcery.com> 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/msg00187.txt.bz2 A Tuesday 10 June 2008 03:03:46, Nick Roberts wrote: > > It all amounts to: > > > > - should there be an MI async event on -thread-select if the > > reply already carries that information? > > But the CLI command "thread" doesn't. I think MI should try to reflect the > state of GDB and the inferior. It shouldn't really matter what commands > were used to put it in that state. I see. I hadn't thought of CLI in MI. Thanks. > If it goes at the end of do_captured_thread_select then I guess that will > be after any exceptions but, to me, putting the logic in gdb_thread_select > makes it clearer that the thread only gets reported when there is no > exception. I think it's clearer to put the observer close to where to switch is performed. Plus, if/when we remove libgdb and the wrapper, we have again to move the observer call... Not the end of the world, but might as well put it in the right place now, IMHO. Oh well, opinions :-) -- Pedro Alves