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
|
