From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21952 invoked by alias); 24 Nov 2009 14:24:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 21940 invoked by uid 22791); 24 Nov 2009 14:24:18 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 24 Nov 2009 14:24:10 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 500D110CE9; Tue, 24 Nov 2009 14:24:08 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (209.195.188.212.nauticom.net [209.195.188.212]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B436109F9; Tue, 24 Nov 2009 14:24:08 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NCwJL-0003z1-2b; Tue, 24 Nov 2009 09:24:07 -0500 Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 14:24:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Andrew Stubbs Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, "Maciej W. Rozycki" , Vladimir Prus , Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: RFC: Fix "break *EXP thread NUM" Message-ID: <20091124142406.GA14875@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Stubbs , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, "Maciej W. Rozycki" , Vladimir Prus , Eli Zaretskii References: <20091123212736.GA3828@caradoc.them.org> <4B0BB652.3080303@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4B0BB652.3080303@codesourcery.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-IsSubscribed: yes 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: 2009-11/txt/msg00523.txt.bz2 On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 10:32:50AM +0000, Andrew Stubbs wrote: > Unfortunately, I can. :( > > It's also valid to say, for example: > > (gdb) b main t 999 > Unknown thread 999. Neither documented nor tested :-( Do we want/need this functionality? > or > > (gdb) b main thread -10 > Unknown thread -10. > > or indeed > > (gdb) b main thread +10 > Unknown thread 10. Ditto, and these are much more trouble because thread +10 is a valid C expression. Fortunately, thread numbers are always positive. Is this useful? I see that "task" is listed too now and should be added. And the other parsers, including Ada, probably need similar work - except there I don't know how to do it. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery