From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1399 invoked by alias); 7 May 2003 18:56:40 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 1388 invoked from network); 7 May 2003 18:56:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hub.ott.qnx.com) (209.226.137.76) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 7 May 2003 18:56:40 -0000 Received: from smtp.ott.qnx.com (smtp.ott.qnx.com [10.0.2.158]) by hub.ott.qnx.com (8.9.3p2/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA11003 for ; Wed, 7 May 2003 14:53:51 -0400 Received: from node1.ott.qnx.com (hwlab1 [10.0.2.159]) by smtp.ott.qnx.com (8.8.8/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA29544 for ; Wed, 7 May 2003 14:56:38 -0400 Received: (from alain@localhost) by node1.ott.qnx.com (8.8.8/8.6.12) id OAA23599 for gdb@sources.redhat.com; Wed, 7 May 2003 14:56:37 -0400 Message-Id: <200305071856.OAA23599@node1.ott.qnx.com> Subject: Re: Event notification (was Re: GDB/MI lawyer for Thread Creation) To: gdb@sources.redhat.com Date: Wed, 07 May 2003 18:56:00 -0000 From: "Alain Magloire" In-Reply-To: <3EB93140.30803@redhat.com> from "Andrew Cagney" at May 07, 2003 12:16:00 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-05/txt/msg00095.txt.bz2 > > > > I went digging in the old email exchanges with kseitz .... > > And yes this is what I'm looking for > > > > one nitpicking: > > > > - the event notifications mechanism seem to be for side effects, for example > > setting a breakpoint via CLI, notification is sent informing of the side effect. > > Or assigning statements having side effects. > > > > It does not seem to address "pure" async event. Threads creation/destruction, > > and loading of shared libs are two examples that spring to mind about the need > > of notification when the inferior is still running. > > > > It those cases, I would say that sending an OOB instead of async-notify is more > > appropriate. > > Hmm, makes sense - a real rationale. Anyone else have comments? > > Want to re-word the MI doco so this is clearer? > heu .... being native french speaking... mais bien sure!!! (evil laughter here ...) > > Questions: > > Will kseitz_interps-20020528-branch be merge to the main trunk? > > Any ETA ? > > The branch contains a lot of stuff, but importantly prototypes for two > new features: > - interps command > - breakpoint events > The interps feature is now implemented in the mainline. The breakpoint > stuff has't been done. One missing bit of the framework needed for > that feature - observer.[hc] - was recently added by Joel though. > Observers ... looking trough the code ...... Was the observer pattern also intended for other notifications then stop. Like observer_attach_thread_creation() observer_attach_shared_loaded() etc ... Or it is the wrong approach?