Re: [PATCH+doc] Fix PR threads/19422 - show which thread caused stop

[Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>]

On 01/14/2016 04:36 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> 
>> From: Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>
>> Subject: [PATCH] Fix PR threads/19422 - show which thread caused stop
>>
>> This commit changes GDB like this:
>>
>>  - Program received signal SIGINT, Interrupt.
>>  + Thread 1 "main" received signal SIGINT, Interrupt.
>>
>>  - Breakpoint 1 at 0x40087a: file threads.c, line 87.
>>  + Thread 3 "bar" hit Breakpoint 1 at 0x40087a: file threads.c, line 87.
> 
> Would it make sense to lose the "hit" part, and have this say
> 
>   Thread 3 "bar": breakpoint 1 at 0x40087a: file threads.c, line 87.
> 

Not sure.  I kind of got used to how it was.  Kind of the
counterpart of being explicit in saying "received", in the signal
case.  If going that direction, I guess you'd also want:

  Thread 1 "main": received signal SIGINT, Interrupt.
  Thread 1 "main": signal SIGINT, Interrupt.

doesn't look right to me, for some reason.  But it may just
be habituation.

> (Note that I also avoided capitalizing "breakpoint".)
> 

Yeah, I initially thought of doing that as well, but then at least
with "hit", uppercase makes it easier to parse the message.  At
least for me.

The second reason I didn't lower case is that it's easier to
implement not showing anything about threads until the program
goes multi-threaded this way, both in gdb and in the testsuite.
Otherwise we need extra logic.

The third reason I prefer the way it is, is that it's already
implemented this way.  :-)

Thanks,
Pedro Alves