From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25990 invoked by alias); 2 Dec 2010 17:10:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 25974 invoked by uid 22791); 2 Dec 2010 17:10:04 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 02 Dec 2010 17:09:59 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94C812BACBC; Thu, 2 Dec 2010 12:09:57 -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 MOjaGQFYoAc3; Thu, 2 Dec 2010 12:09:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D76E2BAC6E; Thu, 2 Dec 2010 12:09:57 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 37541145B58; Thu, 2 Dec 2010 09:09:54 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2010 17:10:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Tom Tromey Cc: Marc Khouzam , "'gdb-patches@sourceware.org'" Subject: Re: [MI] Duplicate --thread-group flag not detected Message-ID: <20101202170954.GA3031@adacore.com> References: <20101126163842.GJ2634@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) 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: 2010-12/txt/msg00016.txt.bz2 > I think in this case the patch is simple and obvious enough that we can > go forward without waiting. > > What do you think of that? Agreed. I am also OK for the 7.2 branch, even if it's not exactly a critical bug. > I was curious about this -- is this sort of transition something people > would want to see done? Would it help MI users? (It would help Python > if we ever implemented the automatic MI wrapping... but I am not sure > whether we really want to do that.) I hope others have enough experience with MI that we can have some useful answers. I don't have much experience with MI myself... -- Joel