Re: [patch/ob] not_a_breakpoint -> not_a_sw_breakpoint

[Andrew Cagney <ac131313@ges.redhat.com>]

> On Aug 16, 11:37am, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> 
> 
>> This patch renames the ``not_a_breakpoint'' parameter of 
>> bpstat_stop_status() to the more correct ``not_a_sw_breakpoint'' so that 
>> it is clear that it is indicating nothing about hardware breakpoints.
> 
> 
> This may be a good change, but I don't think it's obvious.  Could
> you at least explain the reasoning that lead you to conclude that
> the parameter in question indicates nothing about hardware breakpoints?

The variable is used vis:

bpstat_stop_status (CORE_ADDR *pc, int not_a_sw_breakpoint)
{
[...]
   /* Get the address where the breakpoint would have been.  The
      "not_a_sw_breakpoint" argument is meant to distinguish between a
      breakpoint trap event and a trace/singlestep trap event.  For a
      trace/singlestep trap event, we would not want to subtract
      DECR_PC_AFTER_BREAK from the PC. */

   bp_addr = *pc - (not_a_sw_breakpoint && !SOFTWARE_SINGLE_STEP_P () ?
                    0 : DECR_PC_AFTER_BREAK);


Later in the code appears:

           if (DECR_PC_AFTER_HW_BREAK != 0)
             {
               *pc = *pc - DECR_PC_AFTER_HW_BREAK;
               write_pc (*pc);
             }

if not_a_sw_breakpoint applied to hardware breakpoints then the above 
decrement would be guarded by not_a_sw_breakpoint.

BTW, an even more correct name is ``not_a_sw_breakpoint_trap''. 
However, Joel might end up adding something better than that.

I guess nothing is obvious :-(

enjoy,
Andrew