RE: RE: non-stop and current thread exiting

["Marc Khouzam" <marc dot khouzam at ericsson dot com>]

> What I was thinking if that if you select a thread, and continue it,
> and the thread exits, it would be more user-friendly to gray this
> thread, add "(exited)" and then retire it next time we stop. 

That is an interesting idea.  As all UI ideas, its value will be
determined in actual usage.  But it may be nice to have this option.

> You are right that some frontend changes will be required -- but they
> are required anyway to show the "running" state of the thread, so
> seems the extra change to show "exited" state does not add much
> complexity.

If the output of thread-list-ids is simply augmented with (exited),
you are right that it would be an easy change for a frontend.

> 
> > In the case of b) or c) one point that is important for the
> > a frontend is how GDB will react to prohibited commands
> > when no thread is selected?  Will a prohibited command
> > cause an ^error or maybe an empty ^done, or something else?
> 
> With (b), you always have some thread selected. When it is actually
> exited thread, I'd say ^error is the best way. If you send a command
> and get empty ^done, while you expect some data in the response, it's
> not very good, I think.

Sounds right.