Re: [RFA] remote debugging patches

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>]

On Mon, Mar 11, 2002 at 04:08:19PM +0100, Michal Ludvig wrote:
> Andrew Cagney wrote:
> >Yes fine, er almost.  Can you change the name of this to 
> >``DONT_WAIT_FOREVER_FLAG'' and suggest making it an enum. (so GDB can 
> >print it :-)
> 
> Why DONT_WAIT_FOREWER? IMHO wait_forewer is correct, because 0 means 
> don't wait forewer (the default) and 1 means yes, wait forever.

But you had #define WAIT_FOREVER_FLAG 0.

> >If you're feeling really inspired (...), you could even introduce an 
> >enum to handle both the DO and DONT cases.
> 
> OK, I changed it to enum called wait_forever_flag with values yes and 
> no. Now it should be clear enough whether to wait or not. :-)

- "no" and "yes" are useless values for a flag; they don't indicate any
meaning.

- You made wait_forever_flag a variable that was never changed, and
replaced a constant 0 with it... no point.

I think what Andrew had in mind was more like

enum {
  do_not_wait_forever = 0,
  wait_forever = 1
};

and change calls to
  getpkt (blah, do_not_wait_forever)


-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz                           Carnegie Mellon University
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer