Re: [PATCH+doc] Fix PR threads/19422 - show which thread caused stop

[Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>]

On 01/14/2016 06:25 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2016 17:12:42 +0000
>> From: Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>
>> CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
>>
>>>>  - Program received signal SIGINT, Interrupt.
>>>>  + Thread 1 "main" received signal SIGINT, Interrupt.
>>>>
>>>>  - Breakpoint 1 at 0x40087a: file threads.c, line 87.
>>>>  + Thread 3 "bar" hit Breakpoint 1 at 0x40087a: file threads.c, line 87.
>>>
>>> Would it make sense to lose the "hit" part, and have this say
>>>
>>>   Thread 3 "bar": breakpoint 1 at 0x40087a: file threads.c, line 87.
>>>
>>
>> Not sure.  I kind of got used to how it was.  Kind of the
>> counterpart of being explicit in saying "received", in the signal
>> case.  If going that direction, I guess you'd also want:
>>
>>   Thread 1 "main": received signal SIGINT, Interrupt.
>>   Thread 1 "main": signal SIGINT, Interrupt.
> 
> 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.  If you disregard how the
current/single-threaded output looks, it seems better to me
to be consistent at least when debugging multiple threads.

> Besides, "hit a breakpoint" is jargon, which is another reason I
> wanted to get rid of it.

What do you mean, jargon?  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
                           ^^^^^^^^^^

Thanks,
Pedro Alves