Re: [RFA] Inform about new thread in a single place.

[Vladimir Prus <vladimir at codesourcery dot com>]

On Friday 14 December 2007 21:47:45 Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > From: Vladimir Prus <vladimir@codesourcery.com>
> > Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 20:09:08 +0300
> > 
> > We have lots of place where "[New thread XXX]" is printed.
> > This patch makes add_thread responsible for that. OK?
> 
> No, there are places in the code where add_thread() is called where we
> should not print the "[New thread xxx]" message.  For example in
> bsd-uthread.c, where the main thread is added to the list of threads
> to associate process ID and thread ID.

Do you mean this code:

  /* HACK: Twiddle INFERIOR_PTID such that the initial thread of a
     process isn't recognized as a new thread.  */
  if (ptid_get_tid (ptid) != 0 && !in_thread_list (ptid)
      && ptid_get_tid (inferior_ptid) == 0)
    {
      add_thread (ptid);
      inferior_ptid = ptid;
    }

? I've just re-checked, and it appears that:

1. The modules that called add_thread without printing
a message about new thread, prior to my patch are:

	- aix-thread.c
	- bsd-uthread.c
	- corelow.c
	- hpux-thread.c
	- nto-procfs.c
	
Looking at those, it seems like the place you've pointed
at is the only one where reporting of new thread is undesirable.

What about me adding 'add_thread_silent' function that will
not print any message, and using it in bds-uthread.c?

- Volodya