From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24031 invoked by alias); 7 Oct 2013 11:14:25 -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 23998 invoked by uid 89); 7 Oct 2013 11:14:25 -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 11:14:24 +0000 Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r97BEMNB021940 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 7 Oct 2013 07:14:23 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r97BELLn021523; Mon, 7 Oct 2013 07:14:22 -0400 Message-ID: <5252978C.60407@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2013 11:14:00 -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: Re: [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/msg00178.txt.bz2 On 10/04/2013 08:20 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> From: Pedro Alves >> What about this? I'm now saying "no longer in the thread list" >> instead of "is gone". > > This is good, thanks. Thanks. Applied, with the small example adjusted to gdb's new output. ------------- [DOC] Mention what happens when the thread of a thread-specific breakpoint is gone. We recently made GDB auto-delete thread-specific breakpoints when the corresponding thread is removed from the thread list, but we hadn't mentioned it in the manual. gdb/ 2013-10-07 Pedro Alves PR breakpoints/11568 * gdb.texinfo (Thread-Specific Breakpoints): Mention what happens when the thread is removed from the thread list. --- gdb/doc/gdb.texinfo | 18 ++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+) diff --git a/gdb/doc/gdb.texinfo b/gdb/doc/gdb.texinfo index 7ec91d8..e196658 100644 --- a/gdb/doc/gdb.texinfo +++ b/gdb/doc/gdb.texinfo @@ -5864,6 +5864,24 @@ after the breakpoint condition, like this: @end table +Thread-specific breakpoints are automatically deleted when +@value{GDBN} detects the corresponding thread is no longer in the +thread list. For example: + +@smallexample +(@value{GDBP}) c +Thread-specific breakpoint 3 deleted - thread 28 no longer in the thread list. +@end smallexample + +There are several ways for a thread to disappear, such as a regular +thread exit, but also when you detach from the process with the +@code{detach} command (@pxref{Attach, ,Debugging an Already-running +Process}), or if @value{GDBN} loses the remote connection +(@pxref{Remote Debugging}), etc. Note that with some targets, +@value{GDBN} is only able to detect a thread has exited when the user +explictly asks for the thread list with the @code{info threads} +command. + @node Interrupted System Calls @subsection Interrupted System Calls