Re: Move the multi-forks support to the generic multi-inferiors support.

Pedro Alves
2009-06-08T23:16:03Z

On Monday 08 June 2009 23:37:12, Tom Tromey wrote:

> Pedro> (I was a bit surprised to (re-)find that MI doesn't use
> Pedro> print_inferior)
>
> Naughty. Though at a quick glance I didn't see where MI does any
> printing of the inferiors...?

It's in the -list-thread-groups command (mi_cmd_list_thread_groups/print_one_inferior).

> In this case I think the patch is ok anyway -- an error in "info
> threads" does not, IMO, imply that we should propagate the mistake to
> other commands. Let me know what you think of this, I won't install
> the patch if you feel differently.

No, I agree with you.

My only concern is that the PID column may end up being
the wrong name for the target-id, due to targets that don't have a real
notion of PID. I was planning of making that column's value print
something like target_pid_to_str (pid_to_ptid (PID)), just like the
corresponding column in info threads. I was hoping that when
we'd get to name the columns in "info threads" we'd come up with
a nice name for it. :-)

--
Pedro Alves