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: gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 14:33:24 +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> <1155716115.28300.526.camel@crx549.cro.st.com>
ping?
> > > 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.
>