From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22957 invoked by alias); 27 Mar 2009 16:11:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 22949 invoked by uid 22791); 27 Mar 2009 16:11:07 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 16:11:02 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 790B82BABF4; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 12:11:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id vZ23wC+R7W-v; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 12:11:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CF882BAB5D; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 12:11:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 3A7815BD21; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 09:10:51 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 16:36:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFA/doco] Document task-specific breakpoints Message-ID: <20090327161051.GU9472@adacore.com> References: <20090325214556.GD9472@adacore.com> <20090325220236.GF9472@adacore.com> <20090326223902.GL9472@adacore.com> <20090327153441.GP9472@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2009-03/txt/msg00630.txt.bz2 > But in fact, it isn't executing some code, it's stopped at a > breakpoint, isn't it? If it is executing code, what code is that? [...] > If I were the user looking at the "Running" status, I'd certainly > think that something is dead wrong with this task-specific breakpoint. It's been a naming convention that we have been using for 10+ years. So far, we have had no report about this, either customer or internal. Customer support is at the heart of our business, so we are fairly pro-active at encouraging our customers in sending reports. It does NOT mean that you're wrong, but I do disagree with you on this one and I definitely feel like being dragged in a bikeshed discussion. So, unless others also think that this is confusing, I'm not going to change GDB, but I'll agree to change the documentation instead. The problem is that I don't understand what it is that is so confusing to you. I understand that the task is not executing code precisely at the moment where the state was printed, but it was just before the program was stopped, and it will when the program is resumed. What I propose, at this stage, is that you look at the documentation in the GDB manual, and update the description of the "Running" state to provide whatever piece of information you think needs to be added. I can do that for you if you tell me what you want to me add. -- Joel