Time to expand "Program received signal" ?

[Mark Kettenis]

> Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 08:25:30 -0800
> From: Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com>
> 
> > 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.

I do find the strings somewhat long though.  The lines wrap, and that
distracts people from the important bit, which is that a signal was
received.  Are people really interested in the bit between.  Isn't it
better to print just:

  Thread 2 received signal SIGUSR1, User defined signal 1.

Folks can then use "info threads" to look at the details of the thread.