On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Pedro Alves <pedro@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday 31 August 2011 14:18:00, Kevin Pouget wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Kevin Pouget <kevin.pouget@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Hello,
>> >
>> > here is an updated version of the patch, which uses `user_breakpoint_p'
>> >
>> >
>> > thanks,
>> >
>> > Kevin (still waiting for copyright papers)
>>
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> this patch was not explicitly approved when I first submitted it,  but
>> all the concerns were addressed; please let me not if it looks good to
>> you
>
> This is okay, thanks.
>
> On Wednesday 31 August 2011 14:18:00, Kevin Pouget wrote:
>>    ALL_BREAKPOINTS (b)
>> -    others += breakpoint_has_pc (b, pspace, pc, section);
>> +    others += (breakpoint_has_pc (b, pspace, pc, section)
>> +               && user_breakpoint_p (b));
>>    if (others > 0)
>>      {
>>        if (others == 1)
>> @@ -5418,7 +5419,7 @@ describe_other_breakpoints (struct gdbarch *gdbarch,
>>        else /* if (others == ???) */
>>         printf_filtered (_("Note: breakpoints "));
>>        ALL_BREAKPOINTS (b)
>> -       if (breakpoint_has_pc (b, pspace, pc, section))
>> +       if (breakpoint_has_pc (b, pspace, pc, section) && user_breakpoint_p (b))
>
>
> I'd suggest flipping the tests order so the cheaper test is done
> first, like:
>
>> +    others += (user_breakpoint_p (b)
>> +               && breakpoint_has_pc (b, pspace, pc, section));
>
> and
>
>> +       if (user_breakpoint_p (b) && breakpoint_has_pc (b, pspace, pc, section))
>
> Okay with or without that change.
>
> --
> Pedro Alves
>

commited with the change you suggested

Thanks,

Kevin