From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11750 invoked by alias); 5 Jun 2010 05:16:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 11742 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Jun 2010 05:16:19 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from lo.gmane.org (HELO lo.gmane.org) (80.91.229.12) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sat, 05 Jun 2010 05:16:15 +0000 Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OKljv-0006bJ-EB for gdb@sources.redhat.com; Sat, 05 Jun 2010 07:16:11 +0200 Received: from h86-62-88-129.ln.rinet.ru ([86.62.88.129]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 05 Jun 2010 07:16:11 +0200 Received: from vladimir by h86-62-88-129.ln.rinet.ru with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 05 Jun 2010 07:16:11 +0200 To: gdb@sources.redhat.com connect(): No such file or directory From: Vladimir Prus Subject: RE: Multiexec MI broke MI compatibility? Followup-To: gmane.comp.gdb.devel Date: Sat, 05 Jun 2010 05:16:00 -0000 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit User-Agent: KNode/4.3.2 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/msg00022.txt.bz2 Marc Khouzam wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Frederic Riss [mailto:frederic.riss@gmail.com] >> 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? >> >> Hi! >> >> On 13 April 2010 22:33, Marc Khouzam >> wrote: >> >>> 797,748 10-list-thread-groups i1 >> >>> 797,748 10^error,msg="invalid group id 'i1'" >> <-------------- 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. >> >> Done here: >> http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11499 > > 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. Yes, working on that now. > >> 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? The plan is to keep the change, sorry. - Volodya