From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25021 invoked by alias); 13 Nov 2012 16:25:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 25009 invoked by uid 22791); 13 Nov 2012 16:25:55 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_NO X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 16:25:49 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AD212E06F; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 11:25:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id wFSox+AHoU7P; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 11:25:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59A742E06E; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 11:25:48 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id E8B0DC8076; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 08:25:30 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 16:25:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Pedro Alves Cc: "gdb@sourceware.org" Subject: Re: Time to expand "Program received signal" ? Message-ID: <20121113162530.GX4847@adacore.com> References: <50A13A4E.3020000@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <50A13A4E.3020000@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2012-11/txt/msg00018.txt.bz2 > A patch like the below would result in: > > Thread 2 [Thread 0x7ffff7fcf700 (LWP 12023) "sigstep-threads"] received signal SIGUSR1, User defined signal 1. [...] > An option to avoid the duplicate "Thread" would be to stick with the > current "stopped" output. [...] > [Thread 0x7ffff7fcf700 (LWP 12023) "sigstep-threads"] #2 received signal SIGUSR1, User defined signal 1. > [Thread 0x7ffff7fd0740 (LWP 12019) "sigstep-threads"] #1 received signal SIGUSR1, User defined signal 1. FWIW, I think that your first choice is best. I don't think that the "Thread" duplication is a problem, whereas I do indeed find the #1/#2 confusing. -- Joel