Thread-specific breakpoints: say "no longer in the thread list" instead of "gone". (was: [PATCH] [DOC] Mention what happens when the thread of a thread-specific breakpoint is gone.)

[Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>]

On 10/04/2013 08:20 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

> Pedro Alves wrote:
>> Not sure whether GDB's own wording should be changed in the
>> same way?  This is 78 columns:
>>
>> -Thread-specific breakpoint 3 deleted - thread 28 is gone.
>> +Thread-specific breakpoint 3 deleted - thread 28 no longer in the thread list.
>>
>> It'll of course be larger with higher breakpoint and thread numbers, but
>> I guess it is still within reasonable bounds...
> 
> Maybe we should change the message wording as well; "gone" sounds
> awfully like "dead", which is inaccurate, and might even surprise the
> user if the thread actually simply exited.

OK, thanks.  I've applied a patch that changes GDB's wording like above.

---------
Thread-specific breakpoints: say "no longer in the thread list" instead of "gone".

It seems "gone" may confuse people, while that was exactly what it was
trying to avoid.  Switch to saying "no longer in the thread list",
which is really the predicate GDB uses.

gdb/
2013-10-07  Pedro Alves  <palves@redhat.com>

	PR breakpoints/11568
	* breakpoint.c (remove_threaded_breakpoints): Say "no longer in
	the thread list" instead of "gone".
---

 gdb/breakpoint.c |    2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/gdb/breakpoint.c b/gdb/breakpoint.c
index b98ca9e..d3e9e49 100644
--- a/gdb/breakpoint.c
+++ b/gdb/breakpoint.c
@@ -2943,7 +2943,7 @@ remove_threaded_breakpoints (struct thread_info *tp, int silent)
 	  b->disposition = disp_del_at_next_stop;
 
 	  printf_filtered (_("\
-Thread-specific breakpoint %d deleted - thread %d is gone.\n"),
+Thread-specific breakpoint %d deleted - thread %d no longer in the thread list.\n"),
 			  b->number, tp->num);
 
 	  /* Hide it from the user.  */