Time to expand "Program received signal" ?

[Joel Brobecker]

> 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.

-- 
Joel