Re: [PATCH] [DOC] Mention what happens when the thread of a thread-specific breakpoint is gone.

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>]

> Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2013 19:26:52 +0100
> From: Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>
> CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
> 
> On 10/04/2013 06:59 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
> > On 10/04/2013 06:54 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
> >> That was on purpose.  It's what GDB says too.  That's because
> >> there are other ways for a thread to disappear other than
> >> a regular thread exit, such as "detach", "disconnect"
> >> or gdb losing the remote connection, etc.  The thread hasn't
> >> really exited in those cases.
> > 
> > I guess that means I should update the docs to clarify that.  :-)
> > A sec while I prepare a new patch.
> 
> What about this?  I'm now saying "no longer in the thread list"
> instead of "is gone".

This is good, thanks.

> Not sure whether GDB's own wording should be changed in the
> same way?  This is 78 columns:
> 
> -Thread-specific breakpoint 3 deleted - thread 28 is gone.
> +Thread-specific breakpoint 3 deleted - thread 28 no longer in the thread list.
> 
> It'll of course be larger with higher breakpoint and thread numbers, but
> I guess it is still within reasonable bounds...

Maybe we should change the message wording as well; "gone" sounds
awfully like "dead", which is inaccurate, and might even surprise the
user if the thread actually simply exited.