From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-83499-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 12378 invoked by alias); 5 Sep 2011 11:56:43 -0000
Received: (qmail 12369 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Sep 2011 11:56:42 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.2 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,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; Mon, 05 Sep 2011 11:56:28 +0000
Received: (qmail 11452 invoked from network); 5 Sep 2011 11:56:27 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO scottsdale.localnet) (pedro@127.0.0.2)  by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 5 Sep 2011 11:56:27 -0000
From: Pedro Alves <pedro@codesourcery.com>
To: Kevin Pouget <kevin.pouget@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove same-pc breakpoint notification for internal BPs
Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2011 14:43:00 -0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.6 (Linux/2.6.38-11-generic; KDE/4.7.0; x86_64; ; )
Cc: Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com>, gdb-patches@sourceware.org
References: <BANLkTim4J5Nnt_bKQvcvHh+ve+jtQdkw8w@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTikdW7-L_WaLebZuVWRouMRXwXeMNg@mail.gmail.com> <CAPftXULPpkOqU_zBiRMxJDdpOWWpKxdvAFdi0NBYgn1Q7FnKmg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPftXULPpkOqU_zBiRMxJDdpOWWpKxdvAFdi0NBYgn1Q7FnKmg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;  charset="iso-8859-15"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201109051256.24817.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: 2011-09/txt/msg00079.txt.bz2

On Wednesday 31 August 2011 14:18:00, Kevin Pouget wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Kevin Pouget <kevin.pouget@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > here is an updated version of the patch, which uses `user_breakpoint_p'
> >
> >
> > thanks,
> >
> > Kevin (still waiting for copyright papers)
> 
> 
> Hello,
> 
> this patch was not explicitly approved when I first submitted it,  but
> all the concerns were addressed; please let me not if it looks good to
> you

This is okay, thanks.  

On Wednesday 31 August 2011 14:18:00, Kevin Pouget wrote:
>    ALL_BREAKPOINTS (b)
> -    others += breakpoint_has_pc (b, pspace, pc, section);
> +    others += (breakpoint_has_pc (b, pspace, pc, section)
> +               && user_breakpoint_p (b));
>    if (others > 0)
>      {
>        if (others == 1)
> @@ -5418,7 +5419,7 @@ describe_other_breakpoints (struct gdbarch *gdbarch,
>        else /* if (others == ???) */
>         printf_filtered (_("Note: breakpoints "));
>        ALL_BREAKPOINTS (b)
> -       if (breakpoint_has_pc (b, pspace, pc, section))
> +       if (breakpoint_has_pc (b, pspace, pc, section) && user_breakpoint_p (b))


I'd suggest flipping the tests order so the cheaper test is done
first, like:

> +    others += (user_breakpoint_p (b)
> +               && breakpoint_has_pc (b, pspace, pc, section));

and 

> +       if (user_breakpoint_p (b) && breakpoint_has_pc (b, pspace, pc, section))

Okay with or without that change.

-- 
Pedro Alves