Re: [patch:MI] Observer for thread-changed

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

 > It all amounts to:
 > 
 >  - should there be an MI async event on -thread-select if the
 >    reply already carries that information?

But the CLI command "thread" doesn't.  I think MI should try to reflect the
state of GDB and the inferior.  It shouldn't really matter what commands were
used to put it in that state.

 >  - if a command requires a synchronous reply, then it should be
 >    implemented in the command itself, not in an observer.

Which commands require a synchronous reply?

 > > How about the change below instead?  This, of course, requires no change to
 > > mi-main.c.
 > 
 > I'd really prefer to keep gdb_thread_select just an exception
 > wrapper, and do the observer call in do_captured_thread_select.

If it goes at the end of do_captured_thread_select then I guess that will be
after any exceptions but, to me, putting the logic in gdb_thread_select makes
it clearer that the thread only gets reported when there is no exception.

As libgdb seems to be dead in the water (gdb_breakpoint in breakpoint.c
has gone altogether) do we need to be so precious about these function now?

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