From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31827 invoked by alias); 11 Mar 2002 15:37:03 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 31758 invoked from network); 11 Mar 2002 15:37:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (128.2.145.6) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 11 Mar 2002 15:37:00 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 16kRr0-0002RC-00; Mon, 11 Mar 2002 10:36:50 -0500 Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 07:37:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Michal Ludvig Cc: Andrew Cagney , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] remote debugging patches Message-ID: <20020311103650.A9182@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Michal Ludvig , Andrew Cagney , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <3C8BA71F.20807@suse.cz> <3C8BBEFC.5040504@cygnus.com> <3C8CC863.8030206@suse.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3C8CC863.8030206@suse.cz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23i X-SW-Source: 2002-03/txt/msg00157.txt.bz2 On Mon, Mar 11, 2002 at 04:08:19PM +0100, Michal Ludvig wrote: > Andrew Cagney wrote: > >Yes fine, er almost. Can you change the name of this to > >``DONT_WAIT_FOREVER_FLAG'' and suggest making it an enum. (so GDB can > >print it :-) > > Why DONT_WAIT_FOREWER? IMHO wait_forewer is correct, because 0 means > don't wait forewer (the default) and 1 means yes, wait forever. But you had #define WAIT_FOREVER_FLAG 0. > >If you're feeling really inspired (...), you could even introduce an > >enum to handle both the DO and DONT cases. > > OK, I changed it to enum called wait_forever_flag with values yes and > no. Now it should be clear enough whether to wait or not. :-) - "no" and "yes" are useless values for a flag; they don't indicate any meaning. - You made wait_forever_flag a variable that was never changed, and replaced a constant 0 with it... no point. I think what Andrew had in mind was more like enum { do_not_wait_forever = 0, wait_forever = 1 }; and change calls to getpkt (blah, do_not_wait_forever) -- Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer