This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH+doc] Fix PR threads/19422 - show which thread caused stop
- From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
- To: Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2016 20:25:59 +0200
- Subject: Re: [PATCH+doc] Fix PR threads/19422 - show which thread caused stop
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1451950202-18024-1-git-send-email-palves at redhat dot com> <5697ABE8 dot 7060705 at redhat dot com> <83ziw8gltt dot fsf at gnu dot org> <5697D70A dot 1070602 at redhat dot com>
- Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
> Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2016 17:12:42 +0000
> From: Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>
> CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
>
> >> - Program received signal SIGINT, Interrupt.
> >> + Thread 1 "main" received signal SIGINT, Interrupt.
> >>
> >> - Breakpoint 1 at 0x40087a: file threads.c, line 87.
> >> + Thread 3 "bar" hit Breakpoint 1 at 0x40087a: file threads.c, line 87.
> >
> > Would it make sense to lose the "hit" part, and have this say
> >
> > Thread 3 "bar": breakpoint 1 at 0x40087a: file threads.c, line 87.
> >
>
> Not sure. I kind of got used to how it was. Kind of the
> counterpart of being explicit in saying "received", in the signal
> case. If going that direction, I guess you'd also want:
>
> Thread 1 "main": received signal SIGINT, Interrupt.
> Thread 1 "main": signal SIGINT, Interrupt.
No: we already announce signals with "Program received signal". But
with breakpoints, we just say "Breakpoint 1", not "Program hit
breakpoint 1".
Besides, "hit a breakpoint" is jargon, which is another reason I
wanted to get rid of it.
Thanks.