From: Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>
To: Yao Qi <qiyaoltc@gmail.com>
Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/8] Check LWP_SIGNAL_CAN_BE_DELIVERED for enqueue/dequeue pending signals
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 11:07:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <56EA8FFD.1040708@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <86a8lxxzsu.fsf@gmail.com>
On 03/17/2016 08:40 AM, Yao Qi wrote:
>
> Here is the version to change it to function and also update comments as
> Luis suggested.
Thanks.
> +/* The signal can be delivered to the inferior if we are not trying to
> + reinsert a breakpoint and not trying to finish a fast tracepoint
> + collect. */
> +
> +static int
> +lwp_signal_can_be_delivered (struct lwp_info *lwp)
> +{
> + return !(lwp->bp_reinsert != 0 || lwp->collecting_fast_tracepoint);
The comment is written in terms of "and", but the implementation is in
terms of "or", negated.
If you write it like:
return (lwp->bp_reinsert == 0 && !lwp->collecting_fast_tracepoint);
then it matches exactly what the comment says, making it easier to
reason about.
Otherwise LGTM.
Thanks,
Pedro Alves
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-03-17 11:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-03-04 10:44 [PATCH 0/8] Step over instruction branches to itself Yao Qi
2016-03-04 10:44 ` [PATCH 7/8] Resume the inferior with signal rather than stepping over Yao Qi
2016-03-11 12:04 ` Pedro Alves
2016-03-21 9:40 ` Yao Qi
2016-03-04 10:44 ` [PATCH 2/8] Check LWP_SIGNAL_CAN_BE_DELIVERED for enqueue/dequeue pending signals Yao Qi
2016-03-11 10:55 ` Pedro Alves
2016-03-17 8:40 ` Yao Qi
2016-03-17 11:07 ` Pedro Alves [this message]
2016-03-18 14:36 ` Yao Qi
2016-03-16 17:02 ` Luis Machado
2016-03-04 10:44 ` [PATCH 4/8] Force to insert software single step breakpoint Yao Qi
2016-03-11 11:49 ` Pedro Alves
2016-03-16 11:47 ` Yao Qi
2016-03-17 12:40 ` Pedro Alves
2016-03-18 14:25 ` Yao Qi
2016-03-18 15:03 ` Pedro Alves
2016-03-04 10:44 ` [PATCH 3/8] Deliver signal in hardware single step Yao Qi
2016-03-11 11:05 ` Pedro Alves
2016-03-11 11:09 ` Pedro Alves
2016-03-11 11:37 ` Pedro Alves
2016-03-16 10:47 ` Yao Qi
2016-03-17 12:12 ` Pedro Alves
2016-03-04 10:44 ` [PATCH 1/8] Set signal to 0 after enqueue_pending_signal Yao Qi
2016-03-11 10:53 ` Pedro Alves
2016-03-18 14:36 ` Yao Qi
2016-03-04 10:44 ` [PATCH 6/8] [GDBserver] Don't error in reinsert_raw_breakpoint if bp->inserted Yao Qi
2016-03-04 10:45 ` [PATCH 5/8] Insert breakpoint even when the raw breakpoint is found Yao Qi
2016-03-11 11:54 ` Pedro Alves
2016-03-04 10:45 ` [PATCH 8/8] New test case gdb.base/branch-to-self.exp Yao Qi
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=56EA8FFD.1040708@redhat.com \
--to=palves@redhat.com \
--cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
--cc=qiyaoltc@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox