From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9888 invoked by alias); 8 Mar 2010 13:27:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 9855 invoked by uid 22791); 8 Mar 2010 13:27:07 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-8.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 08 Mar 2010 13:26:41 +0000 Received: from int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.17]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o28DQe8K016717 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Mon, 8 Mar 2010 08:26:40 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o28DQdMh026725 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 8 Mar 2010 08:26:39 -0500 Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2010 13:27:00 -0000 From: Kevin Buettner To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [commit/RFA] Avoid switch to invalid ptid during Ada task switch. Message-ID: <20100308062637.3a03cd51@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <1267975529-28959-1-git-send-email-brobecker@adacore.com> References: <1267975529-28959-1-git-send-email-brobecker@adacore.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: 2010-03/txt/msg00306.txt.bz2 On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 19:25:29 +0400 Joel Brobecker wrote: > When this happens, it's just nicer for the user to print an error > message, and cancel the task switch. After this patch is applied, > this is what we get: > > (gdb) task 1 > [New Thread 10250] > Unable to compute thread ID for task 1. > Cannot switch to this task. > > What do you guys think? Is the wording OK? I think that the wording that you added is fine, though I find it confusing to see that there's a new thread, [New Thread 10250], but that GDB is unable to switch to it. I think it might be less confusing if the [New Thread...] message did not appear at all. I'm guessing though that suppressing that message would not be easy, and probably not worthwhile, especially for a case that's not supposed to happen. Kevin