From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-80512-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 5832 invoked by alias); 21 Apr 2011 14:59:59 -0000
Received: (qmail 5824 invoked by uid 22791); 21 Apr 2011 14:59:58 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (38.113.113.100)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 21 Apr 2011 14:59:41 +0000
Received: (qmail 9955 invoked from network); 21 Apr 2011 14:59:41 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO scottsdale.localnet) (pedro@127.0.0.2)  by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 21 Apr 2011 14:59:41 -0000
From: Pedro Alves <pedro@codesourcery.com>
To: Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove same-pc breakpoint notification for internal BPs
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 14:59:00 -0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.5 (Linux/2.6.35-28-generic; KDE/4.6.2; x86_64; ; )
Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Kevin Pouget <kevin.pouget@gmail.com>
References: <BANLkTim4J5Nnt_bKQvcvHh+ve+jtQdkw8w@mail.gmail.com> <201104210949.18831.pedro@codesourcery.com> <m3liz3zo21.fsf@fleche.redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <m3liz3zo21.fsf@fleche.redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201104211559.40948.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: 2011-04/txt/msg00394.txt.bz2

On Thursday 21 April 2011 15:17:26, Tom Tromey wrote:
> I wonder if this code should be using user_breakpoint_p instead.

I never understood why we need that function (as is implemented) though.

  /* Return non-zero if B is user settable (breakpoints, watchpoints,
     catchpoints, et.al.).  */

  static int
  user_settable_breakpoint (const struct breakpoint *b)
  {
      return (b->type == bp_breakpoint
  	  || b->type == bp_catchpoint
  	  || b->type == bp_hardware_breakpoint
  	  || is_tracepoint (b)
  	  || is_watchpoint (b)
  	  || b->type == bp_gnu_ifunc_resolver);
  }

  /* Return true if this breakpoint was set by the user, false if it is
     internal or momentary.  */

  int
  user_breakpoint_p (struct breakpoint *b)
  {
    return user_settable_breakpoint (b) && b->number > 0;
  }

What could be !user_settable_breakpoint whose b->number is > 0?
IOW, why isn't that just :

  int
  user_breakpoint_p (struct breakpoint *b)
  {
    return b->number > 0;
  }

?

There are a bunch of places that check b->number directly.

-- 
Pedro Alves