From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1769 invoked by alias); 16 Jun 2008 13:19:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 1761 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Jun 2008 13:19:01 -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; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 13:18:37 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9B379840F; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 13:18:34 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C69B79840B; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 13:18:34 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1K8EbR-0003pT-Ss; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 09:18:33 -0400 Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 22:28:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Vladimir Prus Cc: Nick Roberts , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [patch:MI] Observer for thread-changed Message-ID: <20080616131833.GA14096@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Vladimir Prus , Nick Roberts , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <18509.7945.19078.399646@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <20080614191328.GA11666@caradoc.them.org> <18516.16499.732319.353988@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <200806152142.36083.ghost@cs.msu.su> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200806152142.36083.ghost@cs.msu.su> 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/msg00311.txt.bz2 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