This is the mail archive of the
gdb@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: Time to expand "Program received signal" ?
- From: Mark Kettenis <mark dot kettenis at xs4all dot nl>
- To: brobecker at adacore dot com
- Cc: palves at redhat dot com, gdb at sourceware dot org
- Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 17:40:20 +0100 (CET)
- Subject: Re: Time to expand "Program received signal" ?
- References: <50A13A4E.3020000@redhat.com> <20121113162530.GX4847@adacore.com>
> Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 08:25:30 -0800
> From: Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com>
>
> > 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.