On Monday 24 November 2008 21:53:25, Michael Snyder wrote:
> > Isn't this the same reasoning behind having thread_apply_command
> > and thread_apply_all implementations, instead of having one call
> > into the other?
> 
> OK -- are you suggesting to abstract print_thread_info out
> into two separate functions?

That, or make print_thread_info itself take a range, something
like the attached.  If MI wants to be able to specify a range,
we could make print_thread_info itself that a char* and do the
range parsing there.

There's still always both a prune_threads and target_find_new_threads
call, but with that I can live.

We *could* be smarter about that too.  Only prune threads in
the passed range iff we're specifying a range (all otherwise); and,
only find new threads if any of the range ends is higher
than the highest id known.

-- 
Pedro Alves