This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sourceware.org mailing list for the GDB project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
On 2017-02-24 15:22, Simon Marchi wrote:
- The type of the id-in-tg field (a string) assumes that a thread belongs to a single group. Currently, the only kind of "thread-group" we have is inferiors. The thread-group terminology suggests that in the future we might have other kinds of thread groups, like user-defined arbitrary groups. Otherwise, why would MI use "thread group" instead of "inferior"? Because of this, do you think that the type of the field will be limiting? For example, should we document right that this field can be a list, when a thread is part of multiple groups, for example?
Sorry, this paragraph should have referred to the "tg-id" field. Although the "id-in-tg" makes sense when talking about an inferior thread group, but not so much when talking about other kinds of thread groups. If we have additional kinds of thread groups, they might not assign their own specific ids to threads.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |