Re: MI non-stop interface details

[Pawel Piech <pawel dot piech at windriver dot com>]

Vladimir Prus wrote:
> On Friday 02 May 2008 21:31:08 Pawel Piech wrote:
>
>   
> > Right now, *stopped reports the thread which hit the breakpoint. In
> > all-stop mode, all threads are stopped. In non-stop mode, only that thread
> > is stopped.
> >
> > We surely can add an extra field to indicate which threads are actually stopped,
> > if this makes life easier.
> >   
> >  Thank You :-)  It would be more helpful if the thread-id field was 
> >  left alone and always reported the triggering thread as it does now.  
> >  It would be better (more consistent and logical) if the new field 
> >  was used to indicate whether or not the whole container changed state.    
> >     
>
> For avoidance of doubt, do you have any objections to *running using the "thread-id"
> as the field name? Since this is new notification, there's no backward compatibility
> issues, and there's no issue of which thread originally triggered anything.
>
> - Volodya
>   
First of all, I think it's important to make the events in all-stop and 
non-stop mode to be consistent.  Additionally, it is helpful if the 
fields, such as thread-id have consistent meaning even if they are used 
in different events.  So for consistency sake it would be better to also 
use thread-id to indicate the triggering thread in the running event as 
well, and use a separate field to indicate whether the container changed 
state.  BTW the triggering thread is needed in the running event, for 
example when stepping in the all-stop mode.

-Pawel