From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-47892-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 839 invoked by alias); 3 Mar 2007 09:08:34 -0000
Received: (qmail 830 invoked by uid 22791); 3 Mar 2007 09:08:33 -0000
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from elrond.portugalmail.pt (HELO elrond.portugalmail.pt) (195.245.179.181)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sat, 03 Mar 2007 09:08:28 +0000
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) 	by elrond.portugalmail.pt (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94C7239891; 	Sat,  3 Mar 2007 09:08:20 +0000 (WET)
Received: from elrond.portugalmail.pt ([127.0.0.1]) 	by localhost (elrond.portugalmail.pt [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) 	with ESMTP id EXCTanbAeTDu; Sat,  3 Mar 2007 09:08:20 +0000 (WET)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (62.169.106.230.rev.optimus.pt [62.169.106.230]) 	(Authenticated sender: pedro_alves@portugalmail.pt) 	by elrond.portugalmail.pt (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F375398A9; 	Sat,  3 Mar 2007 09:08:04 +0000 (WET)
Message-ID: <45E93AE5.5050704@portugalmail.pt>
Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2007 09:08:00 -0000
From: Pedro Alves <pedro_alves@portugalmail.pt>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; pt-BR; rv:1.8.0.9) Gecko/20061207 Thunderbird/1.5.0.9 Mnenhy/0.7.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Markus Deuling <deuling@de.ibm.com>
CC: GDB Patches <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
Subject: Re: [Patch]: Little Cleanup
References: <45E7CC17.5040304@de.ibm.com>
In-Reply-To: <45E7CC17.5040304@de.ibm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 000720-0, 01-03-2007), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
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: 2007-03/txt/msg00023.txt.bz2

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