RFC: Two small remote protocol extensions

[Andrew Cagney]

> are, only marginally different.
>> 
>> Should all threads be halted during this exchange?  I think that is a 
>> separate question.
> 
> 
> I wouldn't call it effectively synchronous - precisely because no other
> thread is stopped.  All threads shouldn't be halted, IMO, but I have
> no way to tell GDB which are and which are not.

No/yes?  The protocol is effectivly synchronous in both cases.

Separate to this, GDB could be modified to not assume all threads 
stopped when a new thread is created.  This change can equally be 
implemented for a local/native and/or a remote target - something 
separate from the remote protocol.

enjoy,
Andrew