From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-50699-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 16043 invoked by alias); 8 Sep 2007 11:26:44 -0000
Received: (qmail 16035 invoked by uid 22791); 8 Sep 2007 11:26:43 -0000
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from nitzan.inter.net.il (HELO nitzan.inter.net.il) (213.8.233.22)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sat, 08 Sep 2007 11:26:38 +0000
Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-80-230-141-251.inter.net.il [80.230.141.251]) 	by nitzan.inter.net.il (MOS 3.7.3a-GA) 	with ESMTP id HTC93797 (AUTH halo1); 	Sat, 8 Sep 2007 14:23:51 +0300 (IDT)
Date: Sat, 08 Sep 2007 11:26:00 -0000
Message-Id: <u3axps8ib.fsf@gnu.org>
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
To: Vladimir Prus <vladimir@codesourcery.com>
CC: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
In-reply-to: <200709080150.05068.vladimir@codesourcery.com> (message from 	Vladimir Prus on Sat, 8 Sep 2007 01:50:04 +0400)
Subject: Re: [7/9] simplify pending breakpoints
Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
References:  <200709080150.05068.vladimir@codesourcery.com>
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2007-09/txt/msg00108.txt.bz2

> From: Vladimir Prus <vladimir@codesourcery.com>
> Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2007 01:50:04 +0400
> 
> @@ -5422,12 +5355,9 @@ break_command_1 (char *arg, int flag, in
>      }
>    else
>      {
> -      struct symtab_and_line sal;
> +      struct symtab_and_line sal = {};

Is this a valid initializer in ISO C?  I think it isn't; at least
under -pedantic, GCC says:

    ttt.c: In function `foo':
    ttt.c:6: warning: ISO C forbids empty initializer braces

> +static void
> +unlink_locations_from_global_list (struct breakpoint *bpt)
> +  /* Remove locations of this breakpoint from the list of
> +     all breakpoint locations.  */
> +{

Style: I think GNU coding standards discourage comments between the
function's definition line and the opening braces.

> +static void
> +update_breakpoint_location (struct breakpoint *b,
> +			    struct symtabs_and_lines sals)
> +{
> +  int i;
> +  char *s;
> +  /* FIXME: memleak.  */

Is there a memory leak here?

> @@ -7164,11 +7185,13 @@ breakpoint_re_set_one (void *bint)
>    struct breakpoint *b = (struct breakpoint *) bint;
>    struct value *mark;
>    int i;
> -  int not_found;
> -  int *not_found_ptr = NULL;
> -  struct symtabs_and_lines sals;
> +  int not_found = 0;
> +  int *not_found_ptr = &not_found;
> +  struct symtabs_and_lines sals = {};

See above.

> -	      breakpoints_changed ();
> +	      /* We surely don't want to warn about the same breakpoint
> +		 10 times.

Why not?  They are different breakpoints.