From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-29121-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 30825 invoked by alias); 4 Dec 2003 22:27:09 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 30818 invoked from network); 4 Dec 2003 22:27:09 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO zenia.home) (12.223.225.216)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 4 Dec 2003 22:27:09 -0000
Received: by zenia.home (Postfix, from userid 5433)
	id DA62820766; Thu,  4 Dec 2003 17:25:33 -0500 (EST)
To: Ulrich Weigand <weigand@i1.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, uweigand@de.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] S/390 port modernization 2/4
References: <200312042006.VAA07709@faui1d.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
From: Jim Blandy <jimb@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 22:27:00 -0000
In-Reply-To: <200312042006.VAA07709@faui1d.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
Message-ID: <vt2k75cz0de.fsf@zenia.home>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-SW-Source: 2003-12/txt/msg00150.txt.bz2


> ! static void
> ! s390_fix_watch_points (void)
>   {
> +   int tid = s390_inferior_tid ();
> + 
>     per_struct per_info;
>     ptrace_area parea;
>   
> +   CORE_ADDR watch_lo_addr = 0, watch_hi_addr = (CORE_ADDR)-1;
> +   struct watch_area *area;
> + 
> +   for (area = watch_base; area; area = area->next)
> +     {
> +       watch_lo_addr = min (watch_lo_addr, area->lo_addr);
> +       watch_hi_addr = max (watch_hi_addr, area->hi_addr);
> +     }
> + 

Is this correct?  Since CORE_ADDR is unsigned, the initial value of
watch_hi_addr will compare greater than any watch area's hi_addr, so
the 'max' will never change its value.  Same for watch_lo_addr.  Don't
you want to set watch_lo_addr to (CORE_ADDR) -1, and watch_hi_addr to
0?