From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-57674-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 24783 invoked by alias); 5 Aug 2008 23:47:14 -0000
Received: (qmail 24768 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Aug 2008 23:47:12 -0000
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from elasmtp-kukur.atl.sa.earthlink.net (HELO elasmtp-kukur.atl.sa.earthlink.net) (209.86.89.65)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 05 Aug 2008 23:46:05 +0000
Received: from [68.108.140.98] (helo=macbook-2.local) 	by elasmtp-kukur.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) 	(envelope-from <stanshebs@earthlink.net>) 	id 1KQWE5-0004xg-70; Tue, 05 Aug 2008 19:46:01 -0400
Message-ID: <4898E637.40302@earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2008 23:47:00 -0000
From: Stan Shebs <stanshebs@earthlink.net>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (Macintosh/20080707)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Phil Muldoon <pmuldoon@redhat.com>
CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: reping: PATCH: Always use breakpoint_enabled in breakpoint.c
References: <4891AD28.4000005@redhat.com> <4898E3AE.7020306@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <4898E3AE.7020306@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ELNK-Trace: ae6f8838ff913eba0cc1426638a40ef67e972de0d01da9402fbf1d036e95ae81c15ae666541c594d350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c
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: 2008-08/txt/msg00097.txt.bz2

Phil Muldoon wrote:
> Re-ping on this. It's been about a week, and no comment - negative, 
> positive or otherwise. Are patches like these useful?
I thought it was already OKed! In any case, yes.  You should go ahead 
and get a sourceware account, btw.

Stan
>
> Thanks
>
> Phil
>
> Phil Muldoon wrote:
>> While stepping though breakpoint.c, I noticed two trivial areas of 
>> breakpoint checking that were not using the breakpoint_enabled 
>> function. Change to consistently use the breakpoint_enabled function 
>> over directly checking the breakpoint->enable_state.
>>
>> 2008-07-31  Phil Muldoon  <pmuldoon@redhat.com>
>>
>>    * breakpoint.c (hw_breakpoint_used_count): Use breakpoint_enabled().
>>    (insert_breakpoint_locations): Likewise.
>>
>>
>> Index: gdb/breakpoint.c
>> ===================================================================
>> RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/breakpoint.c,v
>> retrieving revision 1.338
>> diff -u -r1.338 breakpoint.c
>> --- gdb/breakpoint.c    28 Jul 2008 17:53:52 -0000    1.338
>> +++ gdb/breakpoint.c    31 Jul 2008 12:14:22 -0000
>> @@ -1320,7 +1320,7 @@
>>       if (!is_hardware_watchpoint (bpt))
>>     continue;
>>
>> -      if (bpt->enable_state != bp_enabled)
>> +      if (!breakpoint_enabled (bpt))
>>     continue;
>>
>>       if (bpt->disposition == disp_del_at_next_stop)
>> @@ -4768,7 +4768,7 @@
>>
>>   ALL_BREAKPOINTS (b)
>>   {
>> -    if (b->type == bp_hardware_breakpoint && b->enable_state == 
>> bp_enabled)
>> +    if (b->type == bp_hardware_breakpoint && breakpoint_enabled (b))
>>       i++;
>>   }
>>
>
>