From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1499 invoked by alias); 8 Feb 2014 03:39:44 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 1480 invoked by uid 89); 8 Feb 2014 03:39:44 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=1.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,GARBLED_BODY autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-HELO: relay1.mentorg.com Received: from relay1.mentorg.com (HELO relay1.mentorg.com) (192.94.38.131) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Sat, 08 Feb 2014 03:39:43 +0000 Received: from svr-orw-exc-10.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.98.58]) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1WBylW-0000U6-Ld from Yao_Qi@mentor.com ; Fri, 07 Feb 2014 19:39:38 -0800 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, 7 Feb 2014 19:39:38 -0800 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 14.2.247.3; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 19:39:37 -0800 Message-ID: <52F5A67A.7010301@codesourcery.com> Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2014 03:39:00 -0000 From: Yao Qi User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130110 Thunderbird/17.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joel Brobecker CC: andre , Subject: Re: [PATCH] Test no =breakpoint-modified is emitted for modifications from MI commands References: <1390549587-23625-1-git-send-email-yao@codesourcery.com> <52F381B0.4010602@codesourcery.com> <20140206203936.GA7055@klara.mpi.htwm.de> <52F4A366.6060704@codesourcery.com> <20140207161221.GA5150@klara.mpi.htwm.de> <20140208031854.GM5485@adacore.com> In-Reply-To: <20140208031854.GM5485@adacore.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2014-02/txt/msg00237.txt.bz2 On 02/08/2014 11:18 AM, Joel Brobecker wrote: > If we can allow a certain type of usage without damaging consequences > for the rest of the operations, why not? Wouldn't it simplify the > notification mechanism too? > I am not familiar with the internals of FE, such as Eclipse, so hard to tell change like this can break FE or not, but ... > Food for thought: > > I think it would be interesting to investigate whether FEs would > notice if they started receiving those extra notifications. I hope > the processing would be fast enough that they wouldn't. ... as you said, the investigation to FE should be useful to this discussion. > > One other possible option: Add a new option that would be available > to all commands to disable notifications related to the command being > executed. That way, FE could use it to reduce unnecessary back-chatter. That is what I am thinking about. > I don't really like that option, though, as it would require a certain > transition period. What do you mean by "transition period"? We can make use of "-list-features" to tell FE that FE can disable/enable MI notifications through a certain command. -- Yao (齐尧)