From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5680 invoked by alias); 13 Nov 2012 16:40:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 5532 invoked by uid 22791); 13 Nov 2012 16:40:43 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED,RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from sibelius.xs4all.nl (HELO glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl) (83.163.83.176) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 16:40:39 +0000 Received: from glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl (kettenis@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.5/8.14.3) with ESMTP id qADGeMU3007278; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 17:40:22 +0100 (CET) Received: (from kettenis@localhost) by glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.5/8.14.3/Submit) id qADGeKhs021376; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 17:40:20 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 16:40:00 -0000 Message-Id: <201211131640.qADGeKhs021376@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> From: Mark Kettenis To: brobecker@adacore.com CC: palves@redhat.com, gdb@sourceware.org In-reply-to: <20121113162530.GX4847@adacore.com> (message from Joel Brobecker on Tue, 13 Nov 2012 08:25:30 -0800) Subject: Re: Time to expand "Program received signal" ? References: <50A13A4E.3020000@redhat.com> <20121113162530.GX4847@adacore.com> 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/msg00019.txt.bz2 > Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 08:25:30 -0800 > From: Joel Brobecker > > > 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.