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

[Eli Zaretskii]

> 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".

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

Thanks.