From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8847 invoked by alias); 11 Apr 2012 16:45:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 8575 invoked by uid 22791); 11 Apr 2012 16:45:42 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_NO 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; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 16:45:29 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB4C01C6810; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 12:45:28 -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 EHPQm2Nd05Ju; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 12:45:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EFA11C655F; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 12:45:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 422A1145616; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 09:45:22 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 17:17:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Jan Kratochvil Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [cancel] [patch] More suggestive error_is_running message Message-ID: <20120411164522.GE2852@adacore.com> References: <20120410191907.GA31331@host2.jankratochvil.net> <20120411152531.GD2852@adacore.com> <20120411153457.GA22022@host2.jankratochvil.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120411153457.GA22022@host2.jankratochvil.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) 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: 2012-04/txt/msg00254.txt.bz2 > The whole point of my patch was not notify about the _wait_, not about > the _interrupt_, as this is what one cannot easily catch when > debugging a testcase after converting it full-stop -> non-stop. If > you try to reproduce the problem by hand it works. OK, I admit I am > too stupid to write GDB testcases. I missed a bit the context leading to the improvement you were suggesting, but it was not my intention to say that you are "too stupid to [...]" at all. This sounds like a harsh criticism of yourself - perhaps a quirk of English not being our native language for both of us. In any case, as I said, I don't have a strong opinion. I know that we want to both have concise error messages, while at the same time making GDB more explanatory on some confusing or tricky situations. This is a real conundrum. -- Joel