From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7826C385DC35 for ; Sun, 21 Jun 2020 03:43:43 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 7826C385DC35 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=simark.ca Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=simark@simark.ca Received: from [10.0.0.11] (173-246-6-90.qc.cable.ebox.net [173.246.6.90]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id ED5581E793; Sat, 20 Jun 2020 23:43:42 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] gdb/jit: return bool in jit_breakpoint_re_set_internal and jit_read_descriptor To: Tankut Baris Aktemur , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: From: Simon Marchi Message-ID: <94b61d45-22bd-edd2-495d-8160963d9743@simark.ca> Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2020 23:43:42 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.9.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: fr Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2020 03:43:44 -0000 On 2020-06-16 5:49 a.m., Tankut Baris Aktemur via Gdb-patches wrote: > This is a minor refactoring that converts the return type of > jit_read_descriptor and jit_breakpoint_re_set_internal functions > from 'int' to 'bool'. Please mention that you are reversnig the return value logic of jit_breakpoint_re_set_internal, otherwise at first glance it can look like a mistake. Otherwise this LGTM, I think you can push it right away. Simon