Re: [PATCH RFA] process/thread/lwp identifier mega-patch

[Kevin Buettner <kevinb at cygnus dot com>]

On Nov 21,  5:23am, Andrew Cagney wrote:

> > Comments?
> > 
> > I need approval on this from Andrew Cagney.  It'd be nice though for
> > the other affected maintainers (nearly everyone) to chime in though,
> > particularly if you have serious objections...
> 
> As a concept it is approved and most definitly welcome.
> 
> We just need to figure out a way of ensuring that the change doesn't
> de-stablize things too much.  One thought is to cut a branch, apply the
> change there and then release that as a snap.  People can then
> download/test it allowing you to refine the change before committing it
> to the trunk.

I'm willing to do this, but it will only be of value if people
actually download/test from this branch.  Also, I think it would be
preferable for the branch to be relatively short-lived.  (Say two to
three weeks?)

> As a really bad tempoary hack, would the macro:
> 	#define inferior_pid PIDGET (inferior_ptid)
> allow you to break the changes down into a few smaller steps?

I don't think this will work since inferior_pid needs to be used as an
lvalue.

I'll study my patches though to see if there might be a way to break
the changes up into smaller steps.

Kevin