On Monday 07 July 2008 20:10:36, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 03, 2008 at 01:43:08AM +0100, Pedro Alves wrote:

> It's OK. 

> On Thu, Jul 03, 2008 at 01:43:08AM +0100, Pedro Alves wrote:
> > +  /* There used to be a call to mark_breakpoints_out here with the
> > +     following comment:
> > +
> > +      Doing this first prevents the badness of having
> > +      delete_breakpoint() write a breakpoint's current "shadow
> > +      contents" to lift the bp.  That shadow is NOT valid after an
> > +      exec()!
> > +
> > +     The concern is valid, but it was found that there are logical
> > +     places to delete breakpoints after detecting an exec and before
> > +     reaching here.  The call has since moved closer to where the each
> > +     target detects an exec.  */
> > +
>
> Please remove this comment, or write one that describes the current
> state (bonus points for an assertion).  Comments that describe how GDB
> used to be grow more confusing with their age.

/me wants bonus points.

Attached is what I checked in then.

Thanks!

-- 
Pedro Alves