This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH+doc] Fix PR threads/19422 - show which thread caused stop
- From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
- To: Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2016 21:06:34 +0200
- Subject: Re: [PATCH+doc] Fix PR threads/19422 - show which thread caused stop
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1451950202-18024-1-git-send-email-palves at redhat dot com> <5697ABE8 dot 7060705 at redhat dot com> <83ziw8gltt dot fsf at gnu dot org> <5697D70A dot 1070602 at redhat dot com> <83k2ncggqw dot fsf at gnu dot org> <5697F02D dot 8090503 at redhat dot com>
- Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
> Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2016 18:59:57 +0000
> From: Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>
> CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
>
> > No: we already announce signals with "Program received signal". But
> > with breakpoints, we just say "Breakpoint 1", not "Program hit
> > breakpoint 1".
>
> Sure. Following your suggestion ends up with:
>
> Thread 1 "main": breakpoint 1
> Thread 1 "main" received signal SIGINT, Interrupt.
>
> which seems inconsistent to me.
Do we really have to be consistent here? We weren't before your
change.
> > Besides, "hit a breakpoint" is jargon, which is another reason I
> > wanted to get rid of it.
>
> What do you mean, jargon?
"Hit a breakpoint" is jargon. We don't really "hit" anything. A
breakpoint breaks, or triggers.
> GDB already uses the term:
>
> (gdb) info breakpoints
> Num Type Disp Enb Address What
> 1 breakpoint keep y 0x000000000040073e in main at threads.c:40
> breakpoint already hit 1 time
> ^^^^^^^^^^
Yes, but that one is pretty much confined to its corner. The message
that announces a breakpoint is much more visible.
Anyway, we can agree to disagree. No big deal.