This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH] [DOC] Mention what happens when the thread of a thread-specific breakpoint is gone.
- From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
- To: Pedro Alves <alves dot ped at gmail dot com>
- Cc: palves at redhat dot com, gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2013 21:14:40 +0300
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] [DOC] Mention what happens when the thread of a thread-specific breakpoint is gone.
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1380898896-16767-1-git-send-email-palves at redhat dot com> <83y569apvb dot fsf at gnu dot org> <524F00E6 dot 9010104 at gmail dot com>
- Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
> Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2013 18:54:46 +0100
> From: Pedro Alves <alves.ped@gmail.com>
> CC: Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>, gdb-patches@sourceware.org
>
> >> +Thread-specific breakpoints are automatically deleted when
> >> +@value{GDBN} detects the corresponding thread is gone.
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > I'd say "thread exits" instead.
>
> That was on purpose. It's what GDB says too. That's because
> there are other ways for a thread to disappear other than
> a regular thread exit, such as "detach", "disconnect"
> or gdb losing the remote connection, etc. The thread hasn't
> really exited in those cases.
Then let's mention those other possibilities as well. "Is gone" is
too vague and too slang.