[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [cdt-dev] Proposed change in thread naming
|
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Marc Khouzam
> Sent: Friday, November 28, 2014 4:37 PM
> To: 'elaskavaia.cdt@xxxxxxxxx'; 'CDT General developers list.'
> Subject: Re: [cdt-dev] Proposed change in thread naming
>
> > -----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?
Since Windows and Mac never have a thread name, I don't want to show
[unnamed] for every thread.
On Linux, all threads have a name, even if it is the default one.
So, I don't see when to trigger [unnamed].
I won't put that unless someone can give me a scenario.
Thanks
Marc
>
> >
> >
> > 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
