From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2494 invoked by alias); 13 Nov 2012 17:22:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 2482 invoked by uid 22791); 13 Nov 2012 17:22:19 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 17:22:08 +0000 Received: from int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id qADHM6ri001880 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 13 Nov 2012 12:22:06 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id qADHM4Eo030279; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 12:22:05 -0500 Message-ID: <50A281BC.9030802@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 17:22:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121029 Thunderbird/16.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mark Kettenis CC: brobecker@adacore.com, gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Time to expand "Program received signal" ? References: <50A13A4E.3020000@redhat.com> <20121113162530.GX4847@adacore.com> <201211131640.qADGeKhs021376@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> In-Reply-To: <201211131640.qADGeKhs021376@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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/msg00020.txt.bz2 On 11/13/2012 04:40 PM, Mark Kettenis wrote: >> 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. I've been hacking a bit today with a top gdb that has the patch applied, and I've definitely come to agree. The string is indeed too long and distracting. The idea was to have as much in a log as possible, but I guess that if I want that, I can just issue extra "info threads". -- Pedro Alves