From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10190 invoked by alias); 4 Jun 2010 13:46:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 10127 invoked by uid 22791); 4 Jun 2010 13:46:32 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,RCVD_ILLEGAL_IP X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from imr1.ericy.com (HELO imr1.ericy.com) (198.24.6.9) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 04 Jun 2010 13:46:12 +0000 Received: from eusaamw0706.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.31]) by imr1.ericy.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id o54DqmMA017335 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 2010 08:52:48 -0500 Received: from EUSAACMS0703.eamcs.ericsson.se ([169.254.2.83]) by eusaamw0706.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.31]) with mapi; Fri, 4 Jun 2010 09:46:10 -0400 From: Marc Khouzam To: "'gdb@sources.redhat.com'" Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2010 13:46:00 -0000 Subject: RE: Multiexec MI broke MI compatibility? Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2010-06/txt/msg00016.txt.bz2 =20 > -----Original Message----- > From: Frederic Riss [mailto:frederic.riss@gmail.com]=20 > Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 4:12 AM > To: Marc Khouzam > Cc: Vladimir Prus; gdb@sources.redhat.com > Subject: Re: Multiexec MI broke MI compatibility? >=20 > Hi! >=20 > On 13 April 2010 22:33, Marc Khouzam=20 > wrote: > >>> 797,748 10-list-thread-groups i1 > >>> 797,748 10^error,msg=3D"invalid group id 'i1'" =A0 > <-------------- when we ask for the same is, GDB rejects it > >>> 797,749 (gdb) > >> > >> This sounds like a bug indeed. Can you file an issue? > > > > I'm hoping Frederic can do that since he knows the proper details. >=20 > Done here: > http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D11499 As there are discussions for an earlier release of 7.2, I wanted to mention this regression. I think this is something that should be fixed before 7.2. > This leaves the question of whether the thread-group-created > notification name change was appropriate (From a backward > compatibility POV, not from a pure 'it makes sense' angle). As for this, is the plan to keep the change or to revert? Thanks Marc