From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id qMuIF9O6v1+bLQAAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Thu, 26 Nov 2020 09:25:23 -0500 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id 5DB6F1F0AB; Thu, 26 Nov 2020 09:25:23 -0500 (EST) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.3 required=5.0 tests=MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from sourceware.org (unknown [8.43.85.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 138C01E58D for ; Thu, 26 Nov 2020 09:25:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C72AB3857C65; Thu, 26 Nov 2020 14:25:22 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mail-wr1-f65.google.com (mail-wr1-f65.google.com [209.85.221.65]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A8FF73857C65 for ; Thu, 26 Nov 2020 14:25:04 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org A8FF73857C65 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=palves.net Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=alves.ped@gmail.com Received: by mail-wr1-f65.google.com with SMTP id t4so2308029wrr.12 for ; Thu, 26 Nov 2020 06:25:04 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=qxPxVOB9gEOe1nHoNV4SiAx/4qKlGFgvMizV9pGyj/I=; b=jky/GqmJ9zH1ZqykQBGggDw1seZbe+pDcgMDATCTD5QCzb7in/jCLCGnZ9vqzpvvaS qJwcmGiLWAEjvIQ7Yl6GoXGoU0KINJOyPQRp5MrBW3r/KIasEHmDg6e0unyuChwMVEpi cv+erZz5/TGVWoyPm5IgPAzj9hyzlF/l+sA9loAdyq2uUhGhRur0TI4XrjdrD84fBGd/ Cnnpe+ImvGLiXLZ8Peic9qZRkTDz6i4/ZZgI1RK3tiJtARsF+K+8CJkwtukps5oDW39T zjq4vnQbAi/9PUlMhvXX8g8tAXk0XIbEjKE0Pl13Bj8CJXW5WkHZvTTb/5Y6qBYU7Jmh 4R2w== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531sslZrFxhen2Z6Gp2HBy6tLoi1lmKXTwqb31g3muIgklHHdHEO B9Be2gxQGogsGn8A26FWZKF1sasaSFNXfg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyAYgvCuC815UwzxLKB3ngbHM4RsDwdsrqvQUhn5wN2/88c+Z+E4x4avd/3cehdlDlCEqcA0A== X-Received: by 2002:a5d:4046:: with SMTP id w6mr4319967wrp.51.1606400703131; Thu, 26 Nov 2020 06:25:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?IPv6:2001:8a0:f91f:e900:1d90:d745:3c32:c159? ([2001:8a0:f91f:e900:1d90:d745:3c32:c159]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id w11sm8727481wmg.36.2020.11.26.06.25.01 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 26 Nov 2020 06:25:02 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/12] gdb: move displaced stepping logic to gdbarch, allow starting concurrent displaced steps To: Simon Marchi , Simon Marchi , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20201110214614.2842615-1-simon.marchi@efficios.com> <20201110214614.2842615-10-simon.marchi@efficios.com> <72a75576-a54b-bcc8-e8d3-5a57571fe234@palves.net> <1e9654db-de61-a5d4-48c3-a493b8598f0d@efficios.com> <718c6626-c9c5-f24d-a3f4-94acd1552e1d@simark.ca> From: Pedro Alves Message-ID: Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2020 14:25:01 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.2.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <718c6626-c9c5-f24d-a3f4-94acd1552e1d@simark.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: , Errors-To: gdb-patches-bounces@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb-patches" On 11/25/20 7:35 PM, Simon Marchi wrote: > On 2020-11-25 2:29 p.m., Simon Marchi via Gdb-patches wrote: >> True, changed for: >> >> for (thread_info *iter = tp->step_over_next; iter != tp; iter->step_over_next) >> ++num; > > Good thing the compiler didn't let me compile that, it would have made > an infinite loop! Here's the correct one: > > for (thread_info *iter = tp->step_over_next; iter != tp; > iter = iter->step_over_next) > ++num; My personal preference is that when you need to put one of the statements in its own line, then put all statements in their own line: for (thread_info *iter = tp->step_over_next; iter != tp; iter = iter->step_over_next) ++num;