From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3066 invoked by alias); 15 Nov 2008 19:06:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 3017 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Nov 2008 19:06:54 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sat, 15 Nov 2008 19:06:19 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D0302A9627; Sat, 15 Nov 2008 14:06:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 2KKVUCeSqAUu; Sat, 15 Nov 2008 14:06:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25F812A9628; Sat, 15 Nov 2008 14:06:17 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 18A93E7ACD; Sat, 15 Nov 2008 11:06:15 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2008 08:20:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Vladimir Prus Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFC] Implement -list-thread-groups. Message-ID: <20081115190615.GM12802@adacore.com> References: <200811122333.29218.vladimir@codesourcery.com> <20081114015217.GD12802@adacore.com> <200811142028.43561.vladimir@codesourcery.com> <20081115173425.GI12802@adacore.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20081115173425.GI12802@adacore.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i 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: 2008-11/txt/msg00398.txt.bz2 > Since Michael commented on the following assertion: > > > + gdb_assert (requested_thead == -1 || pid == -1); > ^^^^^ Ooops, typo??? > > I think it's important to explain it in the function description. > Can you add a line or two explaining at the end of the function > description explaining that it doesn't make sense to provide both > the pid and the thread at the same time, and thus at least one > of the two must be set to 1. BTW: I should have said that I'm neutral to what the function should do in case the two parameters are not -1. I'll let you guys decide what to do in that case, and I'm fine with doing that as a followup patch (the consequences of this decision are not immediately visible, I believe). -- Joel