Re: [MI] Extending -list-thread-groups --available to show cores

[Vladimir Prus <vladimir@codesourcery.com>]

On Monday 16 November 2009 11:28:38 Vladimir Prus wrote:

> 1. Different output from the above commands. It's backward compatible, and 
> not
> hard to support. Also, if you're asking for details on 20 processes, and a couple
> of them have disappeared, you have a place to report that processes are no longer.
> 
> 2. Multiple thread= if details for multiple processes are requested. As I say above,
> this is somewhat unclean.
> 
> 3. Always output groups=[], even for 1-process case. 
> 
> In fact, option (3) does not seem too bad. Does any frontend available in the
> wild make use of thread groups? And 'support 7.0 and later' issue is easily solved
> by accepting both groups=[] and threads= in output of 1-process -list-thread-groups.
> In fact, we can even put text in the manual to suggest this.

While updating the spec, I have realized that (1) is actually not a problem. We already
have different outputs for different -list-thread-groups. If you pass nothing, you
get groups=[] output. If you pass a single group, you get threads= output. Then,
it seems not so bad to make '-list-thread-groups g1 g2' output be the same as
'-list-thread-groups' -- the latter uses groups=[] on top-level exactly because it has
to report several groups.

- Volodya