Re: [patch:MI] Observer for thread-changed

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>]

On Sun, Jun 15, 2008 at 09:42:35PM +0400, Vladimir Prus wrote:
> We should, or frontends will second guess what MI tells
> them. "Current thread" is not a exact thing, and "current thread
> changed" is not an exact thing either, so we should provide specific
> meaning that is most useful to frontends, and opposed to providing a
> meaning that is most easy for gdb.

This is true.  But shouldn't we err on the side of providing too many
notifications, not too few?  I can easily see this: a front end whose
state changes are driven off observer responses, and the author
complaining /* Synthesize =thread-changed since GDB doesn't notify
after -thread-select */.

Anyway it's clear we're not getting anywhere... since you prefer it,
I'm ok with "whenever the thread changes, except in response to
explicit -thread-select".  Let's move on.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery