From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-64530-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 31992 invoked by alias); 16 Jun 2009 22:59:16 -0000
Received: (qmail 31984 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Jun 2009 22:59:15 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (65.74.133.4)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 16 Jun 2009 22:59:10 +0000
Received: (qmail 21931 invoked from network); 16 Jun 2009 22:59:08 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO orlando.local) (pedro@127.0.0.2)   by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 16 Jun 2009 22:59:08 -0000
From: Pedro Alves <pedro@codesourcery.com>
To: "Pierre Muller" <muller@ics.u-strasbg.fr>
Subject: Re: [PING][RFA-v2] Fix troubles with watchpoints in DJGPP
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 22:59:00 -0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.10
Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org,  "'Eli Zaretskii'" <eliz@gnu.org>
References: <001401c9de9f$928b9f80$b7a2de80$@u-strasbg.fr> <006f01c9e854$7295da10$57c18e30$@u-strasbg.fr> <000001c9eed3$0e883f10$2b98bd30$@u-strasbg.fr>
In-Reply-To: <000001c9eed3$0e883f10$2b98bd30$@u-strasbg.fr>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;   charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200906162359.43456.pedro@codesourcery.com>
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2009-06/txt/msg00417.txt.bz2

On Tuesday 16 June 2009 23:37:38, Pierre Muller wrote:
> 
> No one reacted to this second version of my patch...

My reaction was that the patch looked OK, 
but please could you expand the comment some more to
explain a bit better why we need this:

+  /* Call breakpoint_re_set to update watchpoints types.  */
+  breakpoint_re_set ();

This almost looks like:

+ /* Increment variable by one.  */
+ i++;

;-)

breakpoint_re_set is very likely to be something we
will be wanting to split further, make smarter and/or
eliminate, so having its non-obvious uses nicely described
is a good thing, IMO.

> I still have other hardware watchpoint related problems
> that need to be discussed, but this one is really a small patch,
> no ?

-- 
Pedro Alves