From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6291 invoked by alias); 14 Jan 2016 19:00:01 -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 6279 invoked by uid 89); 14 Jan 2016 19:00:00 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=Hx-languages-length:1715, Besides, Num, disp 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 (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Thu, 14 Jan 2016 18:59:59 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BF57C146E76; Thu, 14 Jan 2016 18:59:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u0EIxvAH014073; Thu, 14 Jan 2016 13:59:58 -0500 Message-ID: <5697F02D.8090503@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2016 19:00:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eli Zaretskii CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH+doc] Fix PR threads/19422 - show which thread caused stop References: <1451950202-18024-1-git-send-email-palves@redhat.com> <5697ABE8.7060705@redhat.com> <83ziw8gltt.fsf@gnu.org> <5697D70A.1070602@redhat.com> <83k2ncggqw.fsf@gnu.org> In-Reply-To: <83k2ncggqw.fsf@gnu.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2016-01/txt/msg00314.txt.bz2 On 01/14/2016 06:25 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2016 17:12:42 +0000 >> From: Pedro Alves >> CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org >> >>>> - 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. > > No: we already announce signals with "Program received signal". But > with breakpoints, we just say "Breakpoint 1", not "Program hit > breakpoint 1". Sure. Following your suggestion ends up with: Thread 1 "main": breakpoint 1 Thread 1 "main" received signal SIGINT, Interrupt. which seems inconsistent to me. If you disregard how the current/single-threaded output looks, it seems better to me to be consistent at least when debugging multiple threads. > Besides, "hit a breakpoint" is jargon, which is another reason I > wanted to get rid of it. What do you mean, jargon? GDB already uses the term: (gdb) info breakpoints Num Type Disp Enb Address What 1 breakpoint keep y 0x000000000040073e in main at threads.c:40 breakpoint already hit 1 time ^^^^^^^^^^ Thanks, Pedro Alves