From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2060 invoked by alias); 15 Oct 2012 17:58:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 2049 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Oct 2012 17:58:33 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,KHOP_RCVD_TRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE,RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-wg0-f73.google.com (HELO mail-wg0-f73.google.com) (74.125.82.73) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 15 Oct 2012 17:58:29 +0000 Received: by mail-wg0-f73.google.com with SMTP id dt12so332421wgb.0 for ; Mon, 15 Oct 2012 10:58:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:date :to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:x-mailer:from :x-gm-message-state; bh=0kA2/kfUrMg6+xtiOfEwKtmR3pL/GXsKGLBMnSWQPLU=; b=ode9wjTd5mUNluz83DZPSNwhscFVnQr19a/YKXTHPdxgN+rkptWUH5AUlDpFqt7sBu FC+3IfrK7rP0uW/C0SANVKuEAteS/qYxPYoMzIyVugnyBFH9zVp48dWPMM3b+BEzY7+v ftMUWk4XjFFroQkQd5cLx/xWvIlZki8EIBsVZUhmnCmofKm87D2P+zRPsj6IWZkcb3Wx AvPb+dhQrmlUnZrBcte0g3ABldYJJ7kvAMA7CxZr2I4QTR/lTrxTz7w7Is8JANqusQOd Yv3X1QfuMbAxlW74uigDAqLLLlI6/odoaGdDmp2eFjRJjBcJXPkmV+uNVVOIvbHLdbR8 vVig== Received: by 10.180.75.197 with SMTP id e5mr2881253wiw.1.1350323908137; Mon, 15 Oct 2012 10:58:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hpza9.eem.corp.google.com ([74.125.121.33]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ci6si763116wib.3.2012.10.15.10.58.28 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA); Mon, 15 Oct 2012 10:58:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ruffy2.mtv.corp.google.com (ruffy2.mtv.corp.google.com [172.17.128.107]) by hpza9.eem.corp.google.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FD615C0063; Mon, 15 Oct 2012 10:58:26 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <20604.20161.315324.841784@ruffy2.mtv.corp.google.com> Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2012 17:58:00 -0000 To: Yao Qi Cc: Tom Tromey , Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] new memory-changed MI notification. In-Reply-To: <5073D5B5.2060208@codesourcery.com> References: <1348793347-12556-1-git-send-email-yao@codesourcery.com> <1348793347-12556-2-git-send-email-yao@codesourcery.com> <87obkqt6ck.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <5073D5B5.2060208@codesourcery.com> From: dje@google.com X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQn3G8AqCzgEag06Cu3wOOoSkFZhqr100BORWOAozyghJaDqNeC35f4DZKPE2RqDNuPxtJB9xqqbfMu7COwG4ZpjpMQj7VmuhnHtVLxfNTIsYyZCGY2OI8/T/MKBC0dYYIBxBNyZrakE83n7ESCSXw2eac3kIzgx4dbxyn3rv5sl+HCwQfkzZBLhNSV8jVzP/6h5ia0JZznssHubRH4gQgxJWI/Sog== 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: 2012-10/txt/msg00225.txt.bz2 Yao Qi writes: > On 09/29/2012 01:17 AM, Tom Tromey wrote: > > Usually I think it would be preferable to have a flag correspond to a > > notification and not a command; but this would not work so well if a > > command needed to suppress two different messages. (Though if that > > happens then maybe we should have a slightly different approach based on > > bitmasks.) > > > > I agree with you that one flag should correspond to a notification. I > revised my patch a little bit to get rid of suppression flag > 'var_assign'. Hi. For my own education, is this suppression just an optimization, or is there a correctness issue here? I can imagine that it's an optimization, why notify the frontend something changed when it's the frontend that requested the change. But there is *zero* documentation in mi-main.h on *why* struct mi_suppress_notification exists, so it's hard to tell. :-( [I realize your patch is just adding an entry, but I'd like to learn what the reason for it is.]