From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz@is.elta.co.il>
To: kevinb@cygnus.com
Cc: msnyder@cygnus.com, jimb@cygnus.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFA] breakpoint.c: More check_duplicates() changes.
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 03:15:00 -0000
Message-id: <5137-Sat12May2001131511+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
References: <1010512080125.ZM29521@ocotillo.lan>
X-SW-Source: 2001-05/msg00268.html

> Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 01:01:25 -0700
> From: Kevin Buettner <kevinb@cygnus.com>
>  
> +/* Return true for all breakpoint types which are permitted to have
> +   addresses which may be a duplicate of some other breakpoint.  E.g,
> +   watchpoints will always have zero valued addresses and we don't
> +   want check_duplicates() to mark a watchpoint as a duplicate of an
> +   actual breakpoint at address zero.  */
> +
> +static int
> +duplicate_okay (struct breakpoint *bpt)
> +{
> +  enum bptype type = bpt->type;
> +
> +  return type == bp_watchpoint
> +         || type == bp_hardware_watchpoint
> +	 || type == bp_read_watchpoint
> +	 || type == bp_access_watchpoint
> +	 || type == bp_catch_exec
> +	 || type == bp_longjmp_resume
> +	 || type == bp_catch_fork
> +	 || type == bp_catch_vfork;
> +}
> +

Is it perhaps possible to explain, for each of these types, why it is
okay to duplicate it?  The comment only gives one example.