This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: RFC: Fix "break *EXP thread NUM"
- From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at false dot org>
- To: Andrew Stubbs <ams at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sourceware dot org, "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro at codesourcery dot com>, Vladimir Prus <vladimir at codesourcery dot com>, Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
- Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 09:24:06 -0500
- Subject: Re: RFC: Fix "break *EXP thread NUM"
- References: <20091123212736.GA3828@caradoc.them.org> <4B0BB652.firstname.lastname@example.org>
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 10:32:50AM +0000, Andrew Stubbs wrote:
> Unfortunately, I can. :(
> It's also valid to say, for example:
> (gdb) b main t 999
> Unknown thread 999.
Neither documented nor tested :-( Do we want/need this functionality?
> (gdb) b main thread -10
> Unknown thread -10.
> or indeed
> (gdb) b main thread +10
> Unknown thread 10.
Ditto, and these are much more trouble because thread +10 is a valid C
expression. Fortunately, thread numbers are always positive. Is this
I see that "task" is listed too now and should be added. And the
other parsers, including Ada, probably need similar work - except
there I don't know how to do it.