From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20788 invoked by alias); 13 Jan 2010 15:02:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 20691 invoked by uid 22791); 13 Jan 2010 15:02:25 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 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; Wed, 13 Jan 2010 15:02:20 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 335D12BAB32; Wed, 13 Jan 2010 10:02:19 -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 vy8v+SpXPWy8; Wed, 13 Jan 2010 10:02:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E0B42BAB24; Wed, 13 Jan 2010 10:02:18 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id A61CFF595E; Wed, 13 Jan 2010 19:02:01 +0400 (RET) Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 15:02:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Pedro Alves Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFA/commit] Rename to_can_use_hw_breakpoint -> to_can_use_hw_watchpoint. Message-ID: <20100113150201.GR2007@adacore.com> References: <1263380049-6804-1-git-send-email-brobecker@adacore.com> <201001131407.04501.pedro@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201001131407.04501.pedro@codesourcery.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) 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: 2010-01/txt/msg00346.txt.bz2 > That's not actually true. [...] Thanks for the feedback. Sigh: I guess the first thing is to improve the documentation of this routine... I would also love to clarify the "other_type" argument. It's just not obvious what this is about... > > In fact, the macro wrapping the call to this routine in current_target > > is actually named target_can_use_hardware_watchpoint. This patch renames > > this routine in the target_ops vector, as well as all > > target-specific implementations, to keep things consistent. > > Yeah. No real objections from me. Consistency is good. Sounds like renaming to use "watchpoint" wouldn't make things any better, though. I'm trying to be lazy, as I don't have the resources right now to start overhauling the h/w watchpoint & breakpoint support. But I don't know if there is anything that's going to help short of that. Perhaps a quick renaming to use "point" instead of "breakpoint" would make things slightly clearer. -- Joel