[RFA] Improve comment in linux-low.c:handle_extended_wait

[RFA] Improve comment in linux-low.c:handle_extended_wait

[Doug Evans]

Hi.

This is a minor cleanup to a comment.
What "it" is isn't clear.

Ok to check in?

2008-12-13  Doug Evans  <dje@google.com>

	* linux-low.c (handle_extended_wait): Improve comment.

Index: linux-low.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/gdbserver/linux-low.c,v
retrieving revision 1.84
diff -u -p -r1.84 linux-low.c
--- linux-low.c	12 Dec 2008 23:14:28 -0000	1.84
+++ linux-low.c	13 Dec 2008 21:28:12 -0000
@@ -180,7 +180,8 @@ handle_extended_wait (struct process_inf
 
       /* Normally we will get the pending SIGSTOP.  But in some cases
 	 we might get another signal delivered to the group first.
-         If we do, be sure not to lose it.  */
+         If we do get another signal, be sure not to lose the SIGSTOP:
+         when we later get it we'll want to resume.  */
       if (WSTOPSIG (status) == SIGSTOP)
 	{
 	  if (stopping_threads)

Re: [RFA] Improve comment in linux-low.c:handle_extended_wait

[Michael Snyder]

Looks fine.

Doug Evans wrote:
> Hi.
> 
> This is a minor cleanup to a comment.
> What "it" is isn't clear.
> 
> Ok to check in?
> 
> 2008-12-13  Doug Evans  <dje@google.com>
> 
> 	* linux-low.c (handle_extended_wait): Improve comment.
> 
> Index: linux-low.c
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/gdbserver/linux-low.c,v
> retrieving revision 1.84
> diff -u -p -r1.84 linux-low.c
> --- linux-low.c	12 Dec 2008 23:14:28 -0000	1.84
> +++ linux-low.c	13 Dec 2008 21:28:12 -0000
> @@ -180,7 +180,8 @@ handle_extended_wait (struct process_inf
>  
>        /* Normally we will get the pending SIGSTOP.  But in some cases
>  	 we might get another signal delivered to the group first.
> -         If we do, be sure not to lose it.  */
> +         If we do get another signal, be sure not to lose the SIGSTOP:
> +         when we later get it we'll want to resume.  */
>        if (WSTOPSIG (status) == SIGSTOP)
>  	{
>  	  if (stopping_threads)

Re: [RFA] Improve comment in linux-low.c:handle_extended_wait

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 01:30:41PM -0800, Doug Evans wrote:
> Hi.
> 
> This is a minor cleanup to a comment.
> What "it" is isn't clear.
> 
> Ok to check in?

Actually, I meant "be sure not to lose the other signal".  We
previously would just stop and think we'd gotten the SIGSTOP.
But your version is equally valid.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery

Re: [RFA] Improve comment in linux-low.c:handle_extended_wait

[Doug Evans]

On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 11:24 AM, Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 01:30:41PM -0800, Doug Evans wrote:
>> Hi.
>>
>> This is a minor cleanup to a comment.
>> What "it" is isn't clear.
>>
>> Ok to check in?
>
> Actually, I meant "be sure not to lose the other signal".  We
> previously would just stop and think we'd gotten the SIGSTOP.
> But your version is equally valid.

I checked in this version.

2008-12-13  Doug Evans  <dje@google.com>

        * linux-low.c (handle_extended_wait): Improve comment.

Index: linux-low.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/gdbserver/linux-low.c,v
retrieving revision 1.87
diff -u -p -r1.87 linux-low.c
--- linux-low.c 5 Jan 2009 23:11:48 -0000       1.87
+++ linux-low.c 6 Jan 2009 00:14:03 -0000
@@ -180,7 +180,7 @@ handle_extended_wait (struct process_inf

       /* Normally we will get the pending SIGSTOP.  But in some cases
         we might get another signal delivered to the group first.
-         If we do, be sure not to lose it.  */
+        If we do get another signal, be sure not to lose it.  */
       if (WSTOPSIG (status) == SIGSTOP)
        {
          if (stopping_threads)