From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8452 invoked by alias); 8 Sep 2007 12:16:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 8443 invoked by uid 22791); 8 Sep 2007 12:16:09 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from heller.inter.net.il (HELO heller.inter.net.il) (213.8.233.23) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sat, 08 Sep 2007 12:16:01 +0000 Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-80-230-141-251.inter.net.il [80.230.141.251]) by heller.inter.net.il (MOS 3.7.3a-GA) with ESMTP id DOM42259 (AUTH halo1); Sat, 8 Sep 2007 15:15:32 +0300 (IDT) Date: Sat, 08 Sep 2007 12:16:00 -0000 Message-Id: From: Eli Zaretskii To: Vladimir Prus CC: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <200709081524.48816.vladimir@codesourcery.com> (message from Vladimir Prus on Sat, 8 Sep 2007 15:24:48 +0400) Subject: Re: [4/9] associate bpstat with location Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <200709080018.25052.vladimir@codesourcery.com> <200709081524.48816.vladimir@codesourcery.com> X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-09/txt/msg00115.txt.bz2 > From: Vladimir Prus > Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2007 15:24:48 +0400 > Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com > > > A minor stylistic point: could we please avoid the annoying > > "Likewise"s? The canonical way of writing a ChangeLog entry for > > several functions with an identical change is this: > > > > (bpstat_find_breakpoint, bpstat_find_step_resume_breakpoint) > > (bpstat_num, print_it_typical): Look at bpstat's location's > > owner, not at bpstat->breakpoint_at. > > > > I'm quite sure the GNU coding standards describe this. (Yes, I know > > that our ChangeLog's abuse "Likewise" too much.) > > I don't have an opinion here; I don't think this has any practical > difference to future readers of ChangeLog. It matters when you grep ChangeLog's for changes in a particular function, for example. > The reason why the assumption is valid is because the only way to have > several bpstats refer to one breakpoint is when breakpoint has two > locations, and both locations have the same address. That makes no sense -- > there's no per-location data that can make those locations different > in behaviour, and so having two locations with same address would > be a bug. If this can happen only as a result of a bug, perhaps a gdb_assert is in order. > > > case bp_access_watchpoint: > > > if (bs->old_val != NULL) > > > { > > > - annotate_watchpoint (bs->breakpoint_at->number); > > > + annotate_watchpoint (b->number); > > > > Watchpoints also? Did you make corresponding changes in the code that > > sets watchpoints? > > No. This patch is not supposed to have any change in behaviour whatsoever, > it merely moves a data member. Does that mean that the display of watchpoints for "info watch" will be now different from "info break"?