From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 57766 invoked by alias); 14 Jan 2016 18:25:54 -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 57754 invoked by uid 89); 14 Jan 2016 18:25:53 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=Hx-languages-length:1116, HX-Received-From:4830, HX-Received-From:134, HX-Received-From:2001 X-HELO: eggs.gnu.org Received: from eggs.gnu.org (HELO eggs.gnu.org) (208.118.235.92) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Thu, 14 Jan 2016 18:25:52 +0000 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aJmag-0004WG-6F for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Thu, 14 Jan 2016 13:25:50 -0500 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:53129) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aJmag-0004WC-2x; Thu, 14 Jan 2016 13:25:46 -0500 Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:3608 helo=HOME-C4E4A596F7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1aJmad-000137-PA; Thu, 14 Jan 2016 13:25:45 -0500 Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2016 18:25:00 -0000 Message-Id: <83k2ncggqw.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Pedro Alves CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-reply-to: <5697D70A.1070602@redhat.com> (message from Pedro Alves on Thu, 14 Jan 2016 17:12:42 +0000) Subject: Re: [PATCH+doc] Fix PR threads/19422 - show which thread caused stop Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <1451950202-18024-1-git-send-email-palves@redhat.com> <5697ABE8.7060705@redhat.com> <83ziw8gltt.fsf@gnu.org> <5697D70A.1070602@redhat.com> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2016-01/txt/msg00313.txt.bz2 > 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". Besides, "hit a breakpoint" is jargon, which is another reason I wanted to get rid of it. Thanks.