Re: A little patch for two comments in infrun.c

[Jim Blandy <jimb@codesourcery.com>]

Wu Zhou <woodzltc@cn.ibm.com> writes:
> --- infrun.c.orig	2006-05-29 23:52:47.000000000 -0700
> +++ infrun.c	2006-05-29 23:53:24.000000000 -0700
> @@ -531,9 +531,6 @@ resume (int step, enum target_signal sig
>      fprintf_unfiltered (gdb_stdlog, "infrun: resume (step=%d, signal=%d)\n",
>  			step, sig);
>  
> -  /* FIXME: calling breakpoint_here_p (read_pc ()) three times! */
> -
> -
>    /* Some targets (e.g. Solaris x86) have a kernel bug when stepping
>       over an instruction that causes a page fault without triggering
>       a hardware watchpoint. The kernel properly notices that it shouldn't
> @@ -1290,7 +1287,7 @@ handle_inferior_event (struct execution_
>  
>    flush_cached_frames ();
>  
> -  /* If it's a new process, add it to the thread database */
> +  /* If it's a new thread, add it to the thread database */
>  
>    ecs->new_thread_event = (!ptid_equal (ecs->ptid, inferior_ptid)
>  			   && !ptid_equal (ecs->ptid, minus_one_ptid)
>

This looks right to me (with an appropriate (trivial) ChangeLog entry,
of course).  But let's wait a bit to see if anyone more familiar with
infrun.c comments.