From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9049 invoked by alias); 6 Jun 2008 02:44:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 9038 invoked by uid 22791); 6 Jun 2008 02:44:56 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 06 Jun 2008 02:44:38 +0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m562iamb003515 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2008 22:44:36 -0400 Received: from pobox.corp.redhat.com (pobox.corp.redhat.com [10.11.255.20]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id m562iPxT022211; Thu, 5 Jun 2008 22:44:35 -0400 Received: from opsy.redhat.com (vpn-10-81.bos.redhat.com [10.16.10.81]) by pobox.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id m562iODO031232; Thu, 5 Jun 2008 22:44:24 -0400 Received: by opsy.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id 259C2508249; Thu, 5 Jun 2008 20:44:24 -0600 (MDT) To: Nick Roberts Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] Another annotation for threads References: <18483.36546.101715.670386@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <20080605193017.GF25085@caradoc.them.org> <18504.22662.394416.990603@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <20080605212615.GA6969@caradoc.them.org> <18504.35208.397231.7949@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <20080606022958.GA23233@caradoc.them.org> From: Tom Tromey Reply-To: Tom Tromey X-Attribution: Tom Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2008 02:44:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20080606022958.GA23233@caradoc.them.org> (Daniel Jacobowitz's message of "Thu\, 5 Jun 2008 22\:29\:58 -0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.1 (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: 2008-06/txt/msg00100.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Daniel" == Daniel Jacobowitz writes: Daniel> On Thu, Jun 05, 2008 at 07:06:16PM -0600, Tom Tromey wrote: >> Is this how things "ought" to work? I mean ideally? Daniel> Yes. But there was disagreement over when a particular observer Daniel> ought to be called. I think I missed an earlier thread about this. This disagreement could be solved, somewhat hackily, by adding more information to the observer notification, so observers can more easily discard the ones they are not interested in. Anyway, thanks for responding. I don't want to talk about it too much in the abstract -- but I did want to get a general idea for changes we write on the Python branch, and I think I understand now. Tom