[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       gdb
Subject:    Re: inconsistency in thread naming
From:       Michael Snyder <msnyder () specifix ! com>
Date:       2007-11-26 19:08:43
Message-ID: 1196104123.2501.49.camel () localhost ! localdomain
[Download RAW message or body]

On Wed, 2007-11-21 at 16:23 -0800, Douglas Evans wrote:
> When gdb switches to a particular thread it prints something like
> 
> [Switching to Thread 12345]
> 
> But the "thread" command takes thread numbers, e.g.
> 
> (gdb) thread 3
> 
> This inconsistency is a pain.  Any objections to making things more
> consistent?  Any opinions on how this should work?  A minimalist
> solution might be to include the thread number (3 in the above
> example) in the [Switching to ...] message.  If there was a consistent
> way to distinguish thread number(3) from thread id(12345) [apologies
> if my terminology if wrong], then the "thread" command could take
> either.  E.g. one might support "thread 3" or "thread #12345".  I
> don't have a strong opinion on what to choose, I'm just thinking out
> loud.

I see that you understand the context.  There are two ways to 
identify a thread -- the "native" way, with an ID that is 
assigned by the native system (a process id, LWP id, or whatever),
and the gdb internal way, with a small counting integer starting
with 1.  The gdb-assigned thread ids are analogous to breakpoint
ids, and are much easier to type.

All gdb commands take the counting-integer-type thread ids
as arguments.

I think both of your suggestions are good:
(1) Identify the internal thread ID in the "Switching to"
and "New Thread" messages.
(2) Provide a syntax (eg. prefix character) with which the
user may use the native thread id instead of the gdb thread
id as a command argument.

By the way, "info threads" is your interface for discovering
the mapping between gdb thread id and native thread id.

Cheers,
Michael



[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]