From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6908 invoked by alias); 4 Oct 2013 19:20:23 -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 6880 invoked by uid 89); 4 Oct 2013 19:20:23 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_SOFTFAIL autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mtaout23.012.net.il Received: from mtaout23.012.net.il (HELO mtaout23.012.net.il) (80.179.55.175) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Fri, 04 Oct 2013 19:20:21 +0000 Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout23.012.net.il by a-mtaout23.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0MU500700RYUBM00@a-mtaout23.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Fri, 04 Oct 2013 22:20:19 +0300 (IDT) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by a-mtaout23.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0MU5007XRSDU9R30@a-mtaout23.012.net.il>; Fri, 04 Oct 2013 22:20:19 +0300 (IDT) Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2013 19:20:00 -0000 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: [PATCH] [DOC] Mention what happens when the thread of a thread-specific breakpoint is gone. In-reply-to: <524F086C.3030908@redhat.com> To: Pedro Alves Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii Message-id: <83siwgc07r.fsf@gnu.org> References: <1380898896-16767-1-git-send-email-palves@redhat.com> <83y569apvb.fsf@gnu.org> <524F00E6.9010104@gmail.com> <524F01E4.7050902@redhat.com> <524F086C.3030908@redhat.com> X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2013-10/txt/msg00154.txt.bz2 > Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2013 19:26:52 +0100 > From: Pedro Alves > CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org > > On 10/04/2013 06:59 PM, Pedro Alves wrote: > > On 10/04/2013 06:54 PM, Pedro Alves wrote: > >> That was on purpose. It's what GDB says too. That's because > >> there are other ways for a thread to disappear other than > >> a regular thread exit, such as "detach", "disconnect" > >> or gdb losing the remote connection, etc. The thread hasn't > >> really exited in those cases. > > > > I guess that means I should update the docs to clarify that. :-) > > A sec while I prepare a new patch. > > What about this? I'm now saying "no longer in the thread list" > instead of "is gone". This is good, thanks. > Not sure whether GDB's own wording should be changed in the > same way? This is 78 columns: > > -Thread-specific breakpoint 3 deleted - thread 28 is gone. > +Thread-specific breakpoint 3 deleted - thread 28 no longer in the thread list. > > It'll of course be larger with higher breakpoint and thread numbers, but > I guess it is still within reasonable bounds... Maybe we should change the message wording as well; "gone" sounds awfully like "dead", which is inaccurate, and might even surprise the user if the thread actually simply exited.