This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH 08/18] gdbserver resume_stop handling bug
- From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
- To: Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 19:53:27 +0200
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/18] gdbserver resume_stop handling bug
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1444836486-25679-1-git-send-email-palves at redhat dot com> <1444836486-25679-9-git-send-email-palves at redhat dot com> <83a8rlxv6v dot fsf at gnu dot org> <5655CFDA dot 2070308 at redhat dot com>
- Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
> Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 15:12:26 +0000
> From: Pedro Alves <email@example.com>
> CC: firstname.lastname@example.org
> >> infrun: Thread 1639.22253 executing, already stopping
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > This is bad English. Suggest to change to "already stopped".
> In this case, "already stopped" would be misleading, as the thread
> isn't really fully stopped yet. This is logging the process of
> stopping all threads, conveying "already in progress of being stopped".
> IOW, "Thread foo is executing, and we're already stopping it".
The problem is that this sentence makes "executing" and "stopping"
seem to refer to the same entity, which is not what you want. As you
say above: the _thread_ is executing, and _we_ are stopping it.
So if my suggestion seems too inaccurate to you (personally, I don't
think that nit will matter, but that's me), then we should rephrase
this more radically. How about
infrun: Thread 1639.22253 executing, about to stop
infrun: Thread 1639.22253 in process of being stopped
infrun: Thread 1639.22253 was requested to stop, still didn't
Or something along these lines.