From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19591 invoked by alias); 16 Aug 2008 20:19:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 19583 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Aug 2008 20:19:39 -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; Sat, 16 Aug 2008 20:18:45 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CF37983B4; Sat, 16 Aug 2008 20:18:43 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AAFE9839E; Sat, 16 Aug 2008 20:18:43 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1KUSEU-0002Ws-Tm; Sat, 16 Aug 2008 16:18:42 -0400 Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2008 20:19:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Vladimir Prus Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA/RFC] Implement =thread-selected notification. Message-ID: <20080816201842.GC9401@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Vladimir Prus , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <200808131640.16054.vladimir@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200808131640.16054.vladimir@codesourcery.com> 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: 2008-08/txt/msg00453.txt.bz2 On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 04:40:15PM +0400, Vladimir Prus wrote: > > I've previously posted a spec of how thread management should work > between MI frontend and GDB. Parts of that spec -- namely --thread > and --frame options were implemented. This patch adds =thread-selected > notification, so that I go ahead and convert that spec into manual > section. > > I went with Dan's suggestion of reporting the change if we end up > with different thread after MI command is done -- which means we don't > have to carefully suppress notifications due to "internal" thread switches. > > Only doc changes need formal approval; feedback on other bits is appreciated. Looks fine to me. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery