From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 85209 invoked by alias); 18 Jan 2016 15:17:18 -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 85198 invoked by uid 89); 18 Jan 2016 15:17:18 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=debuggers, understands, Hit, Hx-languages-length:2430 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; Mon, 18 Jan 2016 15:17:16 +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 (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3353BC09FAB6; Mon, 18 Jan 2016 15:17:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u0IFHDw9012525; Mon, 18 Jan 2016 10:17:14 -0500 Message-ID: <569D01F9.3050907@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2016 15:17:00 -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> <5697F02D.8090503@redhat.com> <83egdkgev9.fsf@gnu.org> In-Reply-To: <83egdkgev9.fsf@gnu.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SW-Source: 2016-01/txt/msg00381.txt.bz2 On 01/14/2016 07:06 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> > Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2016 18:59:57 +0000 >> > From: Pedro Alves >> > CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org >> > >>> > > 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. > Do we really have to be consistent here? We weren't before your > change. > >>> > > Besides, "hit a breakpoint" is jargon, which is another reason I >>> > > wanted to get rid of it. >> > >> > What do you mean, jargon? > "Hit a breakpoint" is jargon. We don't really "hit" anything. A > breakpoint breaks, or triggers. Nothing actually "breaks" either. :-) I think it's as much jargon as the word "breakpoint" itself. IOW, it may not be understood by someone not familiar with a debugger, but anyone familiar with using a debugger understands it. > >> > 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 >> > ^^^^^^^^^^ > Yes, but that one is pretty much confined to its corner. The message > that announces a breakpoint is much more visible. > > Anyway, we can agree to disagree. No big deal. Yes, I think so. Looking up online for documentation of several debuggers, tutorials, etc., I see "breakpoint hit" mentioned all over the place. Some examples: http://bashdb.sourceforge.net/bashdb.html "There is also a notion of a “one-time” breakpoint which gets deleted as soon as it is hit, so that that breakpoint is executed once only. " http://lldb.llvm.org/lldb-gdb.html "Run until we hit line 12 or control leaves the current function." http://docs.roguewave.com/totalview/8.15.10/html/User_Guides/UsingthegSpecifier.html "Thread 1.1 hit breakpoint 1 at line 35 in ".breakpoint_here"" https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/5557y8b4.aspx "When you run this code in the debugger, execution stops whenever the breakpoint is hit, before the code on that line is executed." etc. I really honestly believe that nobody will be confused. Thanks, Pedro Alves