From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2644 invoked by alias); 15 Jan 2013 14:38:01 -0000 Received: (qmail 2593 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Jan 2013 14:38:00 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 15 Jan 2013 14:37:55 +0000 Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r0FEbqoK017347 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 15 Jan 2013 09:37:53 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r0FEbp9Q024301; Tue, 15 Jan 2013 09:37:52 -0500 Message-ID: <50F569BE.9010708@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 14:38:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Yao Qi CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove redundant condition checking. References: <1358242261-16209-1-git-send-email-yao@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: <1358242261-16209-1-git-send-email-yao@codesourcery.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2013-01/txt/msg00304.txt.bz2 On 01/15/2013 09:31 AM, Yao Qi wrote: > The condition '!single_inst' is checked in both [1] and [2], but the > checking in [2] is not necessary. This patch is to remove the > checking in [2], because I don't see keep it in [2] helps > understanding the code. It is obvious to me, but the review is still > welcome. Yes, certainly fine. > * infcmd.c (step_once): Don't check '!single_inst' as it was > check before. "was checked". -- Pedro Alves