From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14237 invoked by alias); 7 Oct 2013 11:03:46 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 14224 invoked by uid 89); 7 Oct 2013 11:03:46 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Mon, 07 Oct 2013 11:03:45 +0000 Received: from int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r97B3gSc017527 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 7 Oct 2013 07:03:42 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r97B3e3T007954; Mon, 7 Oct 2013 07:03:41 -0400 Message-ID: <52529509.7030700@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2013 11:03:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130625 Thunderbird/17.0.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eli Zaretskii CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: 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.) References: <1380898896-16767-1-git-send-email-palves@redhat.com> <83y569apvb.fsf@gnu.org> <524F00E6.9010104@gmail.com> <524F01E4.7050902@redhat.com> <524F086C.3030908@redhat.com> <83siwgc07r.fsf@gnu.org> In-Reply-To: <83siwgc07r.fsf@gnu.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2013-10/txt/msg00177.txt.bz2 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 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. */