From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13336 invoked by alias); 15 Oct 2012 19:07:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 13326 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Oct 2012 19:07:30 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 15 Oct 2012 19:07:22 +0000 Received: from int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q9FJ7IxX000726 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 15 Oct 2012 15:07:18 -0400 Received: from barimba (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q9FJ7HXA030536 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 15 Oct 2012 15:07:17 -0400 From: Tom Tromey To: dje@google.com Cc: Yao Qi , 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> Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2012 19:07:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20604.20161.315324.841784@ruffy2.mtv.corp.google.com> (dje@google.com's message of "Mon, 15 Oct 2012 10:58:25 -0700") Message-ID: <87txtva716.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain 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/msg00234.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Doug" == Douglas Evans writes: Doug> For my own education, is this suppression just an optimization, or is Doug> there a correctness issue here? Doug> I can imagine that it's an optimization, why notify the frontend Doug> something changed when it's the frontend that requested the change. Doug> But there is *zero* documentation in mi-main.h on *why* struct Doug> mi_suppress_notification exists, so it's hard to tell. :-( Doug> [I realize your patch is just adding an entry, but I'd like to learn Doug> what the reason for it is.] I don't know about this case in particular, but in many cases in MI, a command will have a result record that encodes the exact same data that an async response would give. On the other hand, if a CLI command is invoked, then there is no relevant response record, and so the async response must be generated. I think it is an optimization. Offhand I can't think of a correctness issue here, but I guess I wouldn't be surprised if there is one lurking for some command or another. Tom