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

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>]

> Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2016 18:59:57 +0000
> From: Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>
> 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.

> 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.