From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
To: Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>
Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH+doc] Fix PR threads/19422 - show which thread caused stop
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2016 18:25:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <83k2ncggqw.fsf@gnu.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5697D70A.1070602@redhat.com> (message from Pedro Alves on Thu, 14 Jan 2016 17:12:42 +0000)
> Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2016 17:12:42 +0000
> From: Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>
> 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".
Besides, "hit a breakpoint" is jargon, which is another reason I
wanted to get rid of it.
Thanks.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-01-14 18:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-01-04 23:30 [PATCH] " Pedro Alves
2016-01-14 14:08 ` [PATCH+doc] " Pedro Alves
2016-01-14 16:36 ` Eli Zaretskii
2016-01-14 17:12 ` Pedro Alves
2016-01-14 18:25 ` Eli Zaretskii [this message]
2016-01-14 19:00 ` Pedro Alves
2016-01-14 19:06 ` Eli Zaretskii
2016-01-18 15:17 ` Pedro Alves
2016-01-22 16:44 ` Jan Kratochvil
2016-01-22 16:55 ` Pedro Alves
2016-01-22 16:56 ` Jan Kratochvil
2016-01-22 17:30 ` [testsuite patch] Fix PR threads/19422 regression + Guile regression [Re: [PATCH+doc] Fix PR threads/19422 - show which thread caused stop] Jan Kratochvil
2016-01-22 17:31 ` [testsuite patch]#2 " Jan Kratochvil
2016-01-22 18:18 ` [testsuite patch]#3 " Jan Kratochvil
2016-01-22 18:37 ` [testsuite patch]#2 " Pedro Alves
2016-01-22 20:05 ` Jan Kratochvil
2016-01-22 20:11 ` Pedro Alves
2016-01-22 20:17 ` Pedro Alves
2016-01-22 20:25 ` [commit] " Jan Kratochvil
2016-01-22 20:44 ` Pedro Alves
2016-01-22 20:51 ` [commit#2] " Jan Kratochvil
2016-01-22 20:53 ` Pedro Alves
2016-01-14 16:04 ` [PATCH] Fix PR threads/19422 - show which thread caused stop Yao Qi
2016-01-18 15:24 ` Pedro Alves
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=83k2ncggqw.fsf@gnu.org \
--to=eliz@gnu.org \
--cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
--cc=palves@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox