Re: [PATCH] Another annotation for threads

[Nick Roberts <nickrob at snap dot net dot nz>]

Daniel Jacobowitz writes:
 > On Fri, Jun 06, 2008 at 09:20:06AM +1200, Nick Roberts wrote:
 > >  > > If this patch is OK, I will submit a similar one for MI using an observer.
 > >  > 
 > >  > It's quite likely that I've gotten turned around in all the discussion
 > >  > while I was away, and you've already answered this.  But here's my
 > >  > question anyway: if there's going to be an observer to do this in MI,
 > >  > why shouldn't annotate.c use the same observer to call
 > >  > annotate_thread_changed?
 > > 
 > > For the same reason that the "new-thread" annotation was eventually done
 > > without annotations: GDB/MI developers might decide to call it at other
 > > locations.
 > > 
 > > Also it means it has the same idiom as all the other annotations and, on
 > > it's own, it's a simple change that's not very intrusive.
 > 
 > I don't find that very convincing, ...

But that's exactly what did happen.  Shortly after I submitted a patch for the
"new-thread" annotation which used the new_thread observer, the observer was
moved to report the main thread.  It's pragmatic argument rather than technical
one.  I have no control over MI development and Vladimir has stated on several
occasions that MI considerations are paramount.

                                   ... but the patch is OK.

Committed.  Thanks.

-- 
Nick                                           http://www.inet.net.nz/~nickrob