Re: [cdt-dev] Proposed change in thread naming

[Marc Khouzam <marc.khouzam@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> On Behalf Of Alena Laskavaia
> Sent: Friday, November 28, 2014 3:38 PM
> To: CDT General developers list.
> Subject: Re: [cdt-dev] Proposed change in thread naming
> 
> What are the numbers after thread name suppose to mean? Where it is
> coming from?

That is the OS Id of the thread.  On Linux GDB provides that when getting
thread information.  The MI field is "target-id".
On Windows, I was told it does not or always gives 0.

> If you don't have thread name we use "unnamed" at qnx, i.e. it would look
> like
> 
> Thread #1 [Control] (SIGWAITINFO) (Suspended : Signal : SIGINT:Interrupt)
> Thread #2 [unnamed] (CONDVAR) (Suspended : Container) 
> Thread #3 [Socket] (RECEIVE) (Suspended : Container) 
> Thread #4 [unnamed] (RECEIVE) (Suspended : Container)

That is a good point.  If some threads are named, we should show names
for all threads, so [unnamed] sounds good.

That will mean that on Windows (and Mac) all threads will show [unnamed].

> If threads never have names of their system people
> should override label provider (or whatever they need to override)

Yes, except that for DSF-GDB on Windows and Mac, we are those people :)
I'll be honest, I don't really want to have a special label for Windows or Mac
because with remote debugging things get even more difficult than they 
would already be to differentiate.

Do you think showing [unmade] all the time for all threads is a problem?

> 
> 
> On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 10:38 AM, Marc Khouzam
> <marc.khouzam@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> One detail I forgot to mention (that made me want to add the <> of format
> C) is that for systems that don’t provide the thread names, the B format look
> like this:
> B -
> MyProcess [1530] [cores: 2,3]
>    Thread #1 18787 [core: 3] (Suspended: Container)
>    Thread #2 18788 [core: 2] (Running: Container)
>    Thread #3 18789 [core: 3] (Suspended: Container)
>    Thread #4 18797 [core: 3] (Running: Container)
> 
> This will be a rare case on Linux, but for Windows, it will always look like:
> 
> B -
> MyProcess [1530]
>    Thread #1 0 (Suspended: Container)
>    Thread #2 0 (Running: Container)
>    Thread #3 0 (Suspended: Container)
>    Thread #4 0 (Running: Container)
> 
> I wasn’t a big fan of having just a space between the thread id digit and the
> OS id digits, but I’m also not too bothered by it.  I wanted to point it out so
> that you had all the info.
> 
> I’ve posted a one-line patch that implements B.  People can try out and
> comment on it:
>   https://git.eclipse.org/r/#/c/37276/
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Marc
> 
> From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> On Behalf Of Marc Khouzam
> Sent: Friday, November 28, 2014 7:23 AM
> 
> To: cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [cdt-dev] Proposed change in thread naming
> 
> Looks like B is clearly more popular. I'm glad when there's clear feedback like
> this. I'll modify my patch to follow B.
> 
> Once committed we will still have about two months before the release so it
> can still be adapted if something else comes up.
> 
> Thanks everyone
> 
> 
> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com)
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sergey Prigogin [eclipse.sprigogin@xxxxxxxxx]
> Received: Friday, 28 Nov 2014, 0:43
> To: CDT General developers list. [cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> Subject: Re: [cdt-dev] Proposed change in thread naming
> 
> From pure aesthetic reasons I like B more than C.
> 
> -sergey
> 
> On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 5:28 PM, Marc Khouzam
> <marc.khouzam@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Well, I don't want to say "I picked C" as it should be a consensus, but yes, I
> prefer C :)
> 
> When you say "more aligned with JDT", I gather it is because the thread
> name is between square brackets like JDT?  Because the rest does not match
> JDT at all.  Solution C is more aligned with what CDT does now, which I
> thought might be better than trying to match JDT.
> 
> But in the end I want whatever is best for our users, and I'm not very good at
> UI stuff, so I'll go with the majority.  Anyone else have a preference between
> the below B or C?  IIRC, we had another vote for B already, so it is in the
> lead.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Marc
> 
> ________________________________________
> From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] on
> behalf of Alena Laskavaia [elaskavaia.cdt@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: November 27, 2014 6:35 PM
> To: CDT General developers list.
> Subject: Re: [cdt-dev] Proposed change in thread naming
> 
> Are you saying you picked C? I still think B is better because its aligned with
> JDT more
> 
> On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 4:36 PM, Marc Khouzam
> <marc.khouzam@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Thanks for the feedback.
> So we've converged to (I've added all fields that I see in my Debug view):
> 
> A-
> MyProcess [1530] [cores: 2,3]
>   Thread [1] MyProcess 18787 [core: 3] (Suspended: Container)
>   Thread [2] MyProcess 18788 [core: 2] (Running: Container)
>   Thread [3] Worker 18789 [core: 3] (Suspended: Container)
>   Thread [4] Heartbeat 18797 [core: 3] (Running: Container)
> 
> or
> 
> B -
> MyProcess [1530] [cores: 2,3]
>    Thread #1 [MyProcess] 18787 [core: 3] (Suspended: Container)
>    Thread #2 [MyProcess] 18788 [core: 2] (Running: Container)
>    Thread #3 [Worker] 18789 [core: 3] (Suspended: Container)
>    Thread #4 [Heartbeat] 18797 [core: 3] (Running: Container)
> 
> I like A because it simply inserts the name of the thread into our existing
> format.
> And I like B because putting the name in brackets makes it more
> understandable.  Also, thread names can have spaces, so it is good to have
> some kind of grouping symbol.
> I tried to have a hybrid of the two:
> 
> C-
> MyProcess [1530] [cores: 2,3]
>   Thread [1] <MyProcess> 18787 [core: 3] (Suspended: Container)
>   Thread [2] <MyProcess> 18788 [core: 2] (Running: Container)
>   Thread [3] <Worker> 18789 [core: 3] (Suspended: Container)
>   Thread [4] <Heartbeat> 18797 [core: 3] (Running: Container)
> 
> We had an internal discussion here and we found that the different grouping
> delimiter (<>) helps differentiate between different groups.  And although we
> liked #1, #2 for the id, we thought we would follow the current solution
> more and keep [1], [2].
> 
> Does someone disagree?
> If not, this will become the new 'face' of the CDT Debug view for the next
> release.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Marc
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cdt-dev-
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> > On Behalf Of Simon Marchi
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2014 10:54 AM
> > To: cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re: [cdt-dev] Proposed change in thread naming
> >
> > On 2014-11-26 10:39 AM, Alena Laskavaia wrote:
> > > In this case second set square brackets really don't add anything,so
> > > it really becomes #1. Which is fine with me too, since it is what we
> > > show now anyway :)
> > >
> > > Another variant with JDT similar look
> > >
> > > 5 -
> > > MyProcess [1530]
> > >   Thread #1 [MyProcess] (Suspended: Container)
> > >   Thread #2 [MyProcess] (Running: Container)
> > >   Thread #3 [Worker] (Suspended: Container)
> > >   Thread #4 [Heartbeat] (Running: Container)
> >
> > This suggestion is the one I prefer so far.
> > _______________________________________________
> > cdt-dev mailing list
> > cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or
> > unsubscribe from this list, visit
> > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev
> _______________________________________________
> cdt-dev mailing list
> cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe
> from this list, visit https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> cdt-dev mailing list
> cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe
> from this list, visit https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> cdt-dev mailing list
> cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe
> from this list, visit https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev