This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFC] New threadnum command for breakpoints
- From: Frederic RISS <frederic dot riss at st dot com>
- To: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at false dot org>
- Cc: Andreas Schwab <schwab at suse dot de>, gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 10:15:15 +0200
- Subject: Re: [RFC] New threadnum command for breakpoints
- References: <1154093921.28300.236.camel@crx549.cro.st.com> <jeu051eshy.fsf@sykes.suse.de> <1154093921.28300.236.camel@crx549.cro.st.com> <20060728141339.GA15103@nevyn.them.org> <1154098563.28300.282.camel@crx549.cro.st.com> <20060728151434.GA17238@nevyn.them.org> <1154334744.28300.302.camel@crx549.cro.st.com> <20060731125311.GA1272@nevyn.them.org> <1154354425.28300.335.camel@crx549.cro.st.com> <1154376407.5120.27.camel@funkylaptop> <20060808182207.GE24779@nevyn.them.org> <1155066173.5130.52.camel@funkylaptop>
Hi
On Tue, 2006-08-08 at 21:42 +0200, FrÃdÃric Riss wrote:
> > If you want it to be the last stopped thread, which seems reasonable,
> > is there a better name we could give it? Or is $_gdb_thread
> > sufficiently clear?
>
> I'm not sure. The name itself looks fine to me but, speaking as a user,
> I find the leading '_' a bit strange. It seems to imply something about
> the variable, but it's not clear what.
> If it was a convention and all variables would share the same prefix,
> then it wouldn't feel so strange. On the other side if we want to use a
> common convention we've got to start somewhere.
> Anyway that's just a personal feeling, and really no big deal, maybe
> others could share their opinion?
Nobody seems to care. How about we go on with the current patch (modulo
the doco fix that Eli requested)?
Current patch:
http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2006-07/msg00434.html
Fred.