This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sourceware.org mailing list for the GDB project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [PATCH 2/6] Add annex in an async remote notification.

From: Yao Qi <yao at codesourcery dot com>
To: Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>
Cc: <gdb-patches at sourceware dot org>
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 09:04:25 +0800
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> <52448041 dot 3070703 at redhat dot com> <5244E2F6 dot 6050306 at codesourcery dot com>

On 09/27/2013 09:44 AM, Yao Qi wrote:

The ordering is the reason we add annex.  As you said, events
with the same basic notification are handled in a FIFO manner.  Events
with Point:created, Point:modified, and Point:deleted should be
processed in a FIFO order, while Trace:status and Trace:foo should be
processed in FIFO too.  When this series was written,  2013 Jan, hui was
proposing "target-defined breakpoint", which requires some asnyc
notifications on breakpoints, so we added annex in V3.

    [PATCH 1/5] Add annex in a async remote notification.
    https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2013-01/msg00506.html

Nowadays, we have few notifications (Stop and Trace) and each of them
are not related.  As more notification added, we'll need annex in the
infrastructure, IMO.


Pedro,

If you think annex is unnecessary, I can remove it and recreate thepatches on top of V2.


--
Yao (éå)

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]