From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <SRS0=PTmR=74=gnu.org=eliz@sourceware.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org (eggs.gnu.org [IPv6:2001:470:142:3::10])
	by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D73D93858D20
	for <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>; Wed,  5 Apr 2023 10:50:14 +0000 (GMT)
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org D73D93858D20
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gnu.org
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gnu.org
Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e])
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256)
	(Exim 4.90_1)
	(envelope-from <eliz@gnu.org>)
	id 1pk0iQ-0000Jy-Hy; Wed, 05 Apr 2023 06:50:10 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org;
	s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date:
	mime-version; bh=Jq3NLw7MeoGulL8vXicCx0/8zNMtwgYIZiTe3M3mCVU=; b=nUxzYnz5no7Q
	ssKHH3OtreAK9NYGtqLVp8VV++lMc5rsCIqhANZT2hdUBynX4t2sE5aYBmxEJhCLN6YI0GqwUkKsK
	NLyiqc4BL6kiaa+BPMRakES/pI6SXlKTx7CBoVBWKq8ORP7W/kUQWlM7R6YMkfcOhn7xz1LplyGvc
	51+KuJAVnFfeDF+3hed7PiZBs8hCf248513G+UMROD0QtYAWYqFQfRbvT/iWXSw2/FSNHUIpCWZA+
	WBxEIljfwLU04RBkrhaRarOHvFE2Pjm8rykLkMaaMo27LGTwvqozBlEwh7qn+Y7fDVChSaX9BFKnQ
	i6nfZv0xk344fmsbvbH/pQ==;
Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7)
	by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256)
	(Exim 4.90_1)
	(envelope-from <eliz@gnu.org>)
	id 1pk0iP-0007vh-Ux; Wed, 05 Apr 2023 06:50:10 -0400
Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2023 13:50:36 +0300
Message-Id: <83edoysiv7.fsf@gnu.org>
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
To: "Aktemur, Tankut Baris" <tankut.baris.aktemur@intel.com>
Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
In-Reply-To:
	<DM4PR11MB73034D693AE35D7B9BA24A5BC4909@DM4PR11MB7303.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
	(tankut.baris.aktemur@intel.com)
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] gdb: add a '-stopped' option to "info threads"
References: <cover.1680686220.git.tankut.baris.aktemur@intel.com>
 <de95477f0d1022b67e539e15bc6c4dacc0108c85.1680686221.git.tankut.baris.aktemur@intel.com>
 <83ileasl6h.fsf@gnu.org> <DM4PR11MB73034D693AE35D7B9BA24A5BC4909@DM4PR11MB7303.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,RCVD_IN_BARRACUDACENTRAL,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,TXREP autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>

> From: "Aktemur, Tankut Baris" <tankut.baris.aktemur@intel.com>
> Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2023 10:19:26 +0000
> 
> I'm fine if we make the single thread id a special case.

Maybe that's all we should do.

> But then the question is, where do we draw the line?  If the user
> gave just a few thread ids, do we still ignore the flag?  What is
> the limit to the acceptable list length?  Because of these
> questions, consistently applying the flag made more sense to me.

We don't have to be 100% consistent, we just need to be useful.