From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17595 invoked by alias); 17 Nov 2009 19:42:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 17586 invoked by uid 22791); 17 Nov 2009 19:42:15 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 17 Nov 2009 19:41:12 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FBD52BAC24; Tue, 17 Nov 2009 14:41:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id JyblGvz0IYU2; Tue, 17 Nov 2009 14:41:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 865E62BAC23; Tue, 17 Nov 2009 14:41:10 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 2C349F5905; Tue, 17 Nov 2009 14:41:10 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 19:42:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: Jan Kratochvil , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [patch 3/4] Fix hw watchpoints #2: reordered / simultaneously hit Message-ID: <20091117194110.GC5266@adacore.com> References: <20091116034156.GD22701@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> <20091117001056.GE4557@adacore.com> <83k4xpn6hz.fsf@gnu.org> <20091117141139.GA5266@adacore.com> <20091117152912.GA29979@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> <83fx8dm05c.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <83fx8dm05c.fsf@gnu.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) 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: 2009-11/txt/msg00392.txt.bz2 > This is what I remembered, at least for x86. A single additional > instruction can hardly cause any visible slowdown, at least not with > access patterns typical for such flags. > > Any other reasons not to use bitfields? No. I just think it is unnecessary, and I'd rather avoid them. If you are so strongly opinionated about this, or if others agree with you that it is better, I really don't mind all that much. -- Joel