Re: [Patch]: Little Cleanup

[Pedro Alves <pedro_alves@portugalmail.pt>]

Markus Deuling wrote:
> @@ -2909,8 +2902,7 @@
>  
>        if (!breakpoints_inserted && !ecs->another_trap)
>  	{
> -	  breakpoints_failed = insert_breakpoints ();
> -	  if (breakpoints_failed)
> +          if (insert_breakpoints ())
>  	    {
>  	      stop_stepping (ecs);
>  	      return;
>
>   

Actually, I find your version harder to read for someone not knowing the 
insert_breakpoints
API by heart.  To me, it looks like you are testing a function that 
returns a boolean.
I read it as: "if insert_breakpoints succeeded".  It looks like the de 
facto standard is to use:

if (insert_breakpoints () != 0)

The current version doesn't do it either, but 'breakpoints_failed'
gives a pretty good hint.
It may actually by a GNU coding convention, but I'm not sure.

(Just being picky on a Saturday morning, ignore at will.)

Cheers,
Pedro Alves