From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22585 invoked by alias); 12 Feb 2009 19:45:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 22572 invoked by uid 22791); 12 Feb 2009 19:45:45 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx2.redhat.com (HELO mx2.redhat.com) (66.187.237.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 12 Feb 2009 19:45:39 +0000 Received: from int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (int-mx2.corp.redhat.com [172.16.27.26]) by mx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n1CJham7030814; Thu, 12 Feb 2009 14:43:36 -0500 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n1CJhaGb024476; Thu, 12 Feb 2009 14:43:36 -0500 Received: from opsy.redhat.com (vpn-13-214.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.13.214]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n1CJhYlq017497; Thu, 12 Feb 2009 14:43:35 -0500 Received: by opsy.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id DE35A508250; Thu, 12 Feb 2009 12:43:29 -0700 (MST) To: Pedro Alves Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: MI solib notification References: <200901310010.46738.vladimir@codesourcery.com> <200902121801.55254.vladimir@codesourcery.com> <20090212151337.GA9460@caradoc.them.org> <200902121806.45822.pedro@codesourcery.com> From: Tom Tromey Reply-To: tromey@redhat.com Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 19:56:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <200902121806.45822.pedro@codesourcery.com> (Pedro Alves's message of "Thu\, 12 Feb 2009 18\:06\:45 +0000") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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: 2009-02/txt/msg00291.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Pedro" == Pedro Alves writes: Pedro> I'd prefer in these cases to see us move in the direction where Pedro> the observer itself has the needed information to decide if it Pedro> should skip its whatever-action, or, to add a new Pedro> notification. I completely agree. Also, I'd like us to agree that this is a rule that we'll apply in the future. FWIW my impression is that we have been moving in this direction already. Tom