This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFC/WIP PATCH 00/14] I/T sets
- From: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>
- To: Pedro Alves <pedro at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 12:35:38 -0700
- Subject: Re: [RFC/WIP PATCH 00/14] I/T sets
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>>>>> "Pedro" == Pedro Alves <email@example.com> writes:
Pedro> Following up on <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb/2011-11/msg00013.html>.
Pedro> This patch set seeds an implementation of a general
Pedro> inferior/process/thread/core set construct, or inferior/thread set
Pedro> (I/T set, or just itset) for short, which should allow users to refer
Pedro> to large numbers of inferiors, processes, threads, and cores in a
Pedro> consistent way and using a flexible syntax.
Ok, I read through the series and sent all my comments. Some patches I
did not review in detail, since I don't feel competent to do so.
Pedro> IPTC sets are a collection of arbitrarily many processes,
Pedro> threads, and cores.
I wish we had a better name.
The current name seems to gain a letter with every new thread on the
Pedro> Along the idea that we
Pedro> need an intersection operator somehow, an idea I've been kicking in
Pedro> the background, is to make all kinds of objects have the same stand,
Pedro> and require, say, a one letter prefix to identify what kind of object
Pedro> we're specifying. E.g, i for inferior, p for process, t for thread, c
Pedro> for core and a for Ada task. In this scheme, the '.' is really a set
Pedro> intersection operator, and the ',' is the union operator. I'm very
Pedro> much inclined to try this route, but I'm also very interested in
Pedro> learning other's opinions.
I like this idea.