This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH 2/6] Add annex in an async remote notification.
- From: Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>
- To: Yao Qi <yao at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 19:43:13 +0100
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] Add annex in an async remote notification.
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1376877311-4135-1-git-send-email-yao at codesourcery dot com> <1376877311-4135-3-git-send-email-yao at codesourcery dot com>
Hi Yao,
On 08/19/2013 02:55 AM, Yao Qi wrote:
> In order to support "Trace:status" notification and other similar
> usage (such as "Point:modified", about a breakpoint is modified), we
> introduce "annex" in the async remote notification, which is helpful
> to give us more details what the contents about in the async remote
> notification. The annex in each notification is optional. In the
> RSP:
Please help me understand this, as it's not obvious to me.
This mechanism adds a bunch of new code. I've read the series and the
descriptions a few times, and I still haven't managed to find where
the rationale behind these annexes is (or figure it out myself). :-(
_Why_ are they necessary? What problem do they solve, that simply
calling these notifications "Trace-status", "Point-modified", and
later other new notifications "Trace-whatever-else", "Point-whatnot",
etc. wouldn't solve? If it's just neat grouping, than it doesn't
look like worthwhile.
The only thing that comes to mind is ordering -- that is, all
event with the same base notification handled on a FIFO basis,
even if they have different annexes. But that doesn't look like
to be the reason -- given that the other annex
hinted -- Point:modified -- belongs to a different notification.
--
Pedro Alves