Re: non-stop and current thread exiting

[Vladimir Prus <vladimir@codesourcery.com>]

On Thursday 05 June 2008 17:18:20 Marc Khouzam wrote:
> 
> > What I was thinking if that if you select a thread, and continue it,
> > and the thread exits, it would be more user-friendly to gray this
> > thread, add "(exited)" and then retire it next time we stop. 
> 
> That is an interesting idea.  As all UI ideas, its value will be
> determined in actual usage.  

Of course.

> But it may be nice to have this option. 

Right.

> 
> > You are right that some frontend changes will be required -- but they
> > are required anyway to show the "running" state of the thread, so
> > seems the extra change to show "exited" state does not add much
> > complexity.
> 
> If the output of thread-list-ids is simply augmented with (exited),
> you are right that it would be an easy change for a frontend.

Actually, I plan that in the output of -thread-info, each thread will have a field
'state', that can be either 'stopped' or 'running' or 'exited'. So, a frontend
not wishing to specially display exited threads will ignore threads with 
state=exited.

(Incidentally, we might want to introduce more fine-grained values of state, like
'stepping').

> > > In the case of b) or c) one point that is important for the
> > > a frontend is how GDB will react to prohibited commands
> > > when no thread is selected?  Will a prohibited command
> > > cause an ^error or maybe an empty ^done, or something else?
> > 
> > With (b), you always have some thread selected. When it is actually
> > exited thread, I'd say ^error is the best way. If you send a command
> > and get empty ^done, while you expect some data in the response, it's
> > not very good, I think.
> 
> Sounds right.

OK.

- Volodya