From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27618 invoked by alias); 5 Dec 2007 06:08:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 27610 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Dec 2007 06:08:17 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (65.74.133.4) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 06:08:13 +0000 Received: (qmail 28544 invoked from network); 5 Dec 2007 06:08:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO 172.16.unknown.plus.ru) (vladimir@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 5 Dec 2007 06:08:10 -0000 From: Vladimir Prus To: Jim Blandy Subject: Re: [RFA] Clarify infrun variable naming. Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2007 08:37:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <200711231623.04823.vladimir@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200712050908.01388.vladimir@codesourcery.com> Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-12/txt/msg00076.txt.bz2 On Wednesday 05 December 2007 04:17:52 Jim Blandy wrote: > - We should rename trap_expected to stepped_over_breakpoint. The past > tense 'stepped' suggests that we're talking about a step which has > already happened (which is true by the time we reach > handle_inferior_event). Just like Dan, I find 'stepped' confusing -- we set it before we actually stepped. I think 'stepping' is fine -- it's set before we're about to step, and is set until we're done with stepping. Otherwise, your proposal looks good to me! - Volodya