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: Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>
- To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2016 15:17:13 +0000
- 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> <83k2ncggqw dot fsf at gnu dot org> <5697F02D dot 8090503 at redhat dot com> <83egdkgev9 dot fsf at gnu dot org>
On 01/14/2016 07:06 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> > Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2016 18:59:57 +0000
>> > From: Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>
>> > CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
>> >
>>> > > No: we already announce signals with "Program received signal". But
>>> > > with breakpoints, we just say "Breakpoint 1", not "Program hit
>>> > > breakpoint 1".
>> >
>> > Sure. Following your suggestion ends up with:
>> >
>> > Thread 1 "main": breakpoint 1
>> > Thread 1 "main" received signal SIGINT, Interrupt.
>> >
>> > which seems inconsistent to me.
> Do we really have to be consistent here? We weren't before your
> change.
>
>>> > > Besides, "hit a breakpoint" is jargon, which is another reason I
>>> > > wanted to get rid of it.
>> >
>> > What do you mean, jargon?
> "Hit a breakpoint" is jargon. We don't really "hit" anything. A
> breakpoint breaks, or triggers.
Nothing actually "breaks" either. :-) I think it's as much jargon
as the word "breakpoint" itself. IOW, it may not be understood by
someone not familiar with a debugger, but anyone familiar with using
a debugger understands it.
>
>> > GDB already uses the term:
>> >
>> > (gdb) info breakpoints
>> > Num Type Disp Enb Address What
>> > 1 breakpoint keep y 0x000000000040073e in main at threads.c:40
>> > breakpoint already hit 1 time
>> > ^^^^^^^^^^
> Yes, but that one is pretty much confined to its corner. The message
> that announces a breakpoint is much more visible.
>
> Anyway, we can agree to disagree. No big deal.
Yes, I think so.
Looking up online for documentation of several debuggers, tutorials, etc., I
see "breakpoint hit" mentioned all over the place. Some examples:
http://bashdb.sourceforge.net/bashdb.html
"There is also a notion of a “one-time” breakpoint which gets deleted as soon as
it is hit, so that that breakpoint is executed once only. "
http://lldb.llvm.org/lldb-gdb.html
"Run until we hit line 12 or control leaves the current function."
http://docs.roguewave.com/totalview/8.15.10/html/User_Guides/UsingthegSpecifier.html
"Thread 1.1 hit breakpoint 1 at line 35 in ".breakpoint_here""
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/5557y8b4.aspx
"When you run this code in the debugger, execution stops whenever
the breakpoint is hit, before the code on that line is executed."
etc.
I really honestly believe that nobody will be confused.
Thanks,
Pedro Alves