Hi Tom,

Thank you for the feedback. 
Please see my comment for annotations below.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Tromey <tom@tromey.com>
> Sent: Friday, October 3, 2025 10:15 PM
> To: Schimpe, Christina <christina.schimpe@intel.com>
> Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/9] gdb: Implement 'bt shadow' to print the shadow
> stack backtrace.
> 
> >>>>> "Christina" == Christina Schimpe <christina.schimpe@intel.com> writes:
> 
> Christina> Add a subcommand 'bt shadow' for the ordinary backtrace
> Christina> command which prints the shadow stack backtrace.
> Christina> Similar to the ordinary backtrace command 'bt shadow' can be
> Christina> configured using COUNT and the command line option
> Christina> -frame-info.  However, we always print the address and the
> Christina> command is not affected by the setting "print address" as well as
> the setting "print frame-info location-and-address".
> Christina> Also we do not print the frame arguments.
> 
> Christina> --- a/gdb/annotate.c
> Christina> +++ b/gdb/annotate.c
> [...]
> 
> FWIW annotations have been deprecated for ages.  Unless you have a real
> need for them I would suggest simply dropping this part of the patch.

No, I don't have a real need for them. 
I implemented them as annotations are implemented for the ordinary bt command. 
Since "bt shadow" shares a couple of functions I wasn't sure. Partially having annotations
for "bt shadow" seemed wrong, too.

Alternatively, I see 2 options:
-  I could add a check and in case of bt shadow not print annotations at all
-  Remove annotations for the bt command completely

I only found this comment in the docs:
"The annotation mechanism has largely been superseded by GDB/MI (see GDB/MI)."
https://sourceware.org/gdb/current/onlinedocs/gdb.html/Annotations.html#Annotations
I am not sure if that means that they are deprecated or just rarely used. But maybe I am missing something.

What do you think?

Regards,
Christina