Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] gdb: remember previously selected thread per inferior

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>]

> From: Klaus Gerlicher <klaus.gerlicher@intel.com>
> Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2026 12:23:21 +0000
> 
>  gdb/NEWS                                      |   7 +
>  gdb/doc/gdb.texinfo                           |  19 ++
>  gdb/gdbthread.h                               |   4 +
>  gdb/inferior.c                                |  58 +++++-
>  gdb/inferior.h                                |  14 ++
>  gdb/infrun.c                                  |   6 +-
>  gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/inferior-switch.c      |  42 +++++
>  gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/inferior-switch.exp    | 172 ++++++++++++++++++
>  .../gdb.mi/user-selected-context-sync.exp     |  14 ++
>  gdb/thread.c                                  |   8 +
>  10 files changed, 341 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>  create mode 100644 gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/inferior-switch.c
>  create mode 100644 gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/inferior-switch.exp

Thanks.

> --- a/gdb/NEWS
> +++ b/gdb/NEWS
> @@ -3,6 +3,13 @@
>  
>  *** Changes since GDB 17
>  
> +*   By default, GDB now remembers which thread was selected when you were
> +  last working in each inferior.  When you switch back to that inferior,
> +  GDB automatically restores the previous thread selection (if the thread
> +  still exists).  You can disable this behavior with
> +  'set remember-threads-per-inferior off' to use the original behavior
> +  of always selecting the first available thread.
> +
>  * Support for .gdb_index sections with version less than 7 has been
>    removed.

This part is okay.

> diff --git a/gdb/doc/gdb.texinfo b/gdb/doc/gdb.texinfo
> index ceb69669ea6..dcbbcb273c1 100644
> --- a/gdb/doc/gdb.texinfo
> +++ b/gdb/doc/gdb.texinfo

This part is also okay, with one minor comment:

> +When enabled (the default), switching to a previously used inferior will
> +restore the thread that was active when you switched away.  When disabled,
                               ^^^^^^
I think we should say "selected" there, not "active".  The latter is
ambiguous in this context.

Reviewed-By: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>