From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15119 invoked by alias); 29 Sep 2012 01:18:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 15107 invoked by uid 22791); 29 Sep 2012 01:18:16 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.5 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; Sat, 29 Sep 2012 01:18:10 +0000 Received: from svr-orw-exc-10.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.98.58]) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1THlh2-0006Am-NX from Yao_Qi@mentor.com ; Fri, 28 Sep 2012 18:18:08 -0700 Received: from SVR-ORW-FEM-04.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.97.41]) by SVR-ORW-EXC-10.mgc.mentorg.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 28 Sep 2012 18:18:08 -0700 Received: from qiyao.dyndns.org (147.34.91.1) by svr-orw-fem-04.mgc.mentorg.com (147.34.97.41) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.289.1; Fri, 28 Sep 2012 18:18:07 -0700 Message-ID: <50664C51.4070304@codesourcery.com> Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2012 01:18:00 -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: Tom Tromey CC: Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] new memory-changed MI notification. References: <1348793347-12556-1-git-send-email-yao@codesourcery.com> <1348793347-12556-2-git-send-email-yao@codesourcery.com> <87obkqt6ck.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <87obkqt6ck.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> 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: 2012-09/txt/msg00701.txt.bz2 On 09/29/2012 01:17 AM, Tom Tromey wrote: > Is there a particular reason to have two flags? > It seems one would do. > > 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.) Flag 'var_assign' would suppress two notifications, 'memory-changed' and 'register-changed' (to be posted later), because I feel hard to differentiate 'memory write' and 'register write' inside mi_cmd_var_assign and its callees. Presently, looks only "-var-assign' may trigger two notifications, so I am not sure we have to switch to the new approach based on bitmask. -- Yao