From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-13307-listarch-gdb-patches=sourceware.cygnus.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 24201 invoked by alias); 11 Mar 2002 15:53:51 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 24086 invoked from network); 11 Mar 2002 15:53:48 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (24.112.135.44)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 11 Mar 2002 15:53:48 -0000
Received: from cygnus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 09AE13E0D; Mon, 11 Mar 2002 10:53:47 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <3C8CD30A.8070207@cygnus.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 07:53:00 -0000
From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:0.9.8) Gecko/20020210
X-Accept-Language: en-us
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Michal Ludvig <mludvig@suse.cz>
Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [RFA] remote debugging patches
References: <3C8BA71F.20807@suse.cz> <3C8BBEFC.5040504@cygnus.com> <3C8CC863.8030206@suse.cz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-2; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SW-Source: 2002-03/txt/msg00159.txt.bz2

> Andrew Cagney wrote:
> Yes fine, er almost.  Can you change the name of this to ``DONT_WAIT_FOREVER_FLAG'' and suggest making it an enum. (so GDB can print it :-)
> 
> Why DONT_WAIT_FOREWER? IMHO wait_forewer is correct, because 0 means don't wait forewer (the default) and 1 means yes, wait forever.

But you defined:

> +#define WAIT_FOREVER_FLAG 0

Anyway, I think I misunderstood the reason for the change:

> The first one is pretty straightforward and just makes use of the last parameter to getpkt().

As far as I can tell, you've just replaced the last parameter of 
getpkt() with a hardwired value - initially a macro but now an enum.  Is 
that the intent?

When I wrote:

> If you're feeling really inspired (...), you could even introduce an enum to handle both the DO and DONT cases.

I was thinking of something more like:

enum { do_wait_forever, dont_wait_forever } wait_forever_flag;

int
getpkt (..., enum wait_forever_flag forever, ...)
{
	if (forever == do_wait_forever)
	  ...
	else
	  ...
	et.al.
}

{
	getpkt (blah, dont_wait_forever);
}
Andrew