From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22714 invoked by alias); 18 Dec 2011 09:59:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 22703 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Dec 2011 09:59:35 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sun, 18 Dec 2011 09:59:20 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id pBI9wtS9002174 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Sun, 18 Dec 2011 04:58:55 -0500 Received: from host2.jankratochvil.net (ovpn-116-60.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.60]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id pBI9wphB029875 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Sun, 18 Dec 2011 04:58:54 -0500 Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2011 10:11:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Joel Brobecker Cc: Pedro Alves , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [patch] s390*: watchpoints regression [repost] Message-ID: <20111218095850.GA19078@host2.jankratochvil.net> References: <20111217094753.GA20113@host2.jankratochvil.net> <20111217194454.GA15156@host2.jankratochvil.net> <201112171956.33037.alves.ped@gmail.com> <201112172012.57734.pedro@codesourcery.com> <20111218062127.GE21915@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20111218062127.GE21915@adacore.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-IsSubscribed: yes 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: 2011-12/txt/msg00593.txt.bz2 On Sun, 18 Dec 2011 07:21:27 +0100, Joel Brobecker wrote: > > + /* This is the main thread still going through the shell, or, no > > + watchpoint has been set yet. */ > > + if (lwp->arch_private == NULL) > > + return; > > Just a really minor nitpick: Would you consider putting the comment > inside the if, instead of just before? I think it'd be slightly clearer > that way. FYI I am aware of this rule and I try to follow it but it seems unnatural to me. It then requires new { brackets } and when reading the code I would more expect to see why the conditional happens, not why the return happens. But no problem continuing to follow this rule. Thanks, Jan