From: Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl>
To: brobecker@adacore.com
Cc: palves@redhat.com, gdb@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: Time to expand "Program received signal" ?
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 16:40:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <201211131640.qADGeKhs021376@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20121113162530.GX4847@adacore.com> (message from Joel Brobecker on Tue, 13 Nov 2012 08:25:30 -0800)
> Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 08:25:30 -0800
> From: Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com>
>
> > 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.
I do find the strings somewhat long though. The lines wrap, and that
distracts people from the important bit, which is that a signal was
received. Are people really interested in the bit between. Isn't it
better to print just:
Thread 2 received signal SIGUSR1, User defined signal 1.
Folks can then use "info threads" to look at the details of the thread.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-11-13 16:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-11-12 18:27 Pedro Alves
2012-11-13 16:25 ` Joel Brobecker
2012-11-13 16:40 ` Mark Kettenis [this message]
2012-11-13 17:22 ` Pedro Alves
2012-11-13 22:40 ` John Gilmore
2012-11-14 10:26 ` Pedro Alves
2012-11-14 19:54 ` John Gilmore
2012-11-15 10:36 ` Pedro Alves
2012-11-15 16:58 ` Eli Zaretskii
2012-11-15 17:21 ` Pedro Alves
2012-11-15 17:51 ` Joel Brobecker
2012-11-15 18:16 ` Eli Zaretskii
2012-11-15 18:27 ` Paul_Koning
2012-11-15 18:27 ` Pedro Alves
2012-11-15 19:07 ` Eli Zaretskii
2012-11-15 20:33 ` Pedro Alves
2012-11-15 20:58 ` Eli Zaretskii
2012-11-15 19:27 ` Tom Tromey
2012-11-15 22:21 ` John Gilmore
2012-11-15 22:27 ` Paul_Koning
2012-11-16 0:22 ` John Gilmore
2012-11-16 8:25 ` Eli Zaretskii
2012-11-13 17:23 ` Joel Brobecker
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=201211131640.qADGeKhs021376@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl \
--to=mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl \
--cc=brobecker@adacore.com \
--cc=gdb@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