Rene Gollent <anevilyak@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 8:50 AM, Axel Dörfler <axeld@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > wrote: > > It's not really relevant debugging information, so using the > > debugger > > interface to publish that info indeed doesn't feel right. > > While an extra flag could be more convenient to use, another > > possible > > solution besides polling would be to introduce a message based > > generic > > notification possibility (based on the existing notification > > mechanism). > It just seemed like the logical way to do it to me at the time since > it helps keep the debugger in sync with the state of the threads it's > tracking. Sure, it's very convenient. > While the name is purely cosmetic (but still annoying as > pointed out in the case of Tracker and a few others), knowing the > priority seems like valid debug information since that may come into > play in various situations where you have a concurrency bug such as a find_thread() by name might also be important in a debugging situation, and presenting current data is definitely the way to go - it's just not debugging specific information. > priority inversion. In any case, reverted for now, will look into the > notification mechanism if that's what's preferred. At least something like ProcessController could make use of it as well, and it would be the cleanest solution IMO. I wouldn't mind the convenient flag version Ingo suggested, or to keep your solution temporarily either, though. Bye, Axel.