From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29946 invoked by alias); 28 Aug 2012 13:09:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 29697 invoked by uid 22791); 28 Aug 2012 13:09:39 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_WL X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from relay1.mentorg.com (HELO relay1.mentorg.com) (192.94.38.131) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 13:09:24 +0000 Received: from svr-orw-fem-01.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.98.93]) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1T6LXl-0003Mq-PC from Yao_Qi@mentor.com ; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 06:09:21 -0700 Received: from SVR-ORW-FEM-02.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.96.206]) by svr-orw-fem-01.mgc.mentorg.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 28 Aug 2012 06:09:21 -0700 Received: from qiyao.dyndns.org (147.34.91.1) by svr-orw-fem-02.mgc.mentorg.com (147.34.96.168) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.289.1; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 06:09:20 -0700 Message-ID: <503CC302.8060900@codesourcery.com> Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 13:09:00 -0000 From: Yao Qi User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120717 Thunderbird/14.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Vladimir Prus CC: Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] suppress notification References: <1346060757-30130-1-git-send-email-yao@codesourcery.com> <1346060757-30130-4-git-send-email-yao@codesourcery.com> <503C7A1D.6040909@codesourcery.com> <503CB1F0.3020009@cs.msu.su> In-Reply-To: <503CB1F0.3020009@cs.msu.su> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: 2012-08/txt/msg00828.txt.bz2 On 08/28/2012 07:56 PM, Vladimir Prus wrote: > Well, the problem is that this is not a generic mechanism to everybody > to know whether command X is presently running -- because > this mechanism can set only one variable, and for some commands that > variable is already notification flag. > If we want to know whether command X is running, we can add more fields in 'struct mi_suppress_notification', and each field is associated with one command in this way (set 'called' point to the address of field in 'struct mi_suppress_notificatin'). It is unnecessary according to current requirement, and it can evolve easily once we have such requirement in the future. >> If you still think it is misleading, I'd like to rename variable >> 'mi_suppress_notification' to 'mi_cmd_called'. WDYT? > > Would that be any better than just storing the name of current command > and check it with strcmp? Yeah, we're back to where > we've started. What is the problem we're trying to solve? That strcmp is > ugly to type and not entirely efficient? I am adding some MI notifications, which should be suppressed. The problem I have is that we'll have a very long 'if/else if/else if/.../' blocks to compare command name to determine which suppress flag to set. The code smell is not good to me. So I draft these patches to change it. Ideally, we can do this in a more-OO'ed manner, 1 add a new field 'int called' in 'struct mi_cmd', 2 set 'parse->cmd->called' in mi_cmd_execute to 1 and set it back to 0 when it is done. 3 pass 'struct mi_cmd *' to each MI command function, for example change function mi_breakpoint_created to mi_breakpoint_created (struct mi_cmd *self, struct breakpoint *b) 4 inside each MI command function, return early if self->called is 1. Then, we can get rid of mi_suppress_notification completely. This will lead to more changes, so I don't implement it. If it is acceptable to you, I can go to this way. -- Yao