From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19384 invoked by alias); 16 Oct 2012 07:12:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 19370 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Oct 2012 07:12:18 -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; Tue, 16 Oct 2012 07:12:12 +0000 Received: from svr-orw-exc-10.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.98.58]) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1TO1Jy-00078x-GO from Yao_Qi@mentor.com ; Tue, 16 Oct 2012 00:12:10 -0700 Received: from SVR-ORW-FEM-05.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.97.43]) by SVR-ORW-EXC-10.mgc.mentorg.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 16 Oct 2012 00:12:09 -0700 Received: from qiyao.dyndns.org (147.34.91.1) by svr-orw-fem-05.mgc.mentorg.com (147.34.97.43) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.289.1; Tue, 16 Oct 2012 00:12:09 -0700 Message-ID: <507D08D0.6060600@codesourcery.com> Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 07:12:00 -0000 From: Yao Qi User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120911 Thunderbird/15.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: CC: Tom Tromey , 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> <5073D5B5.2060208@codesourcery.com> <20604.20161.315324.841784@ruffy2.mtv.corp.google.com> In-Reply-To: <20604.20161.315324.841784@ruffy2.mtv.corp.google.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: 2012-10/txt/msg00248.txt.bz2 On 10/16/2012 01:58 AM, dje@google.com wrote: > 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. The notifications are designed to tell frontend something about the changes of GDB states which frontend is not aware of. If the changes are requested from fronend, so we think frontend should be aware of these changes, and then notifications are not necessary to be sent. > 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.] It needs some comments here. I'll document it shortly. -- Yao