Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 20:11:52 -0500
From: Jeff Johnston <jjohnstn@redhat.com>
Ok to commit?
I have 2 very minor comments. The first one is about the ChangeLog
entries:
2003-12-10 Jeff Johnston <jjohnstn@redhat.com>
* breakpoint.c (breakpoint_enabled): New function to test whether breakpoint is
active and enabled.
Is this line really that long, or did your mailer mess it up? If the
former, it needs to be reformatted.
( insert_bp_location, insert_breakpoints): Call new function to test
for enabled breakpoint.
(remove_breakpoint, breakpoint_here_p): Ditto.
(breakpoint_thread_match): Ditto.
(bpstat_should_step, bpstat_have_active_hw_watchpoints): Ditto.
(disable_breakpoints_in_shlibs): Ditto.
(hw_watchpoint_used_count): Ditto.
(disable_watchpoints_before_interactive_call_start): Ditto.
(breakpoint_re_set_one): Ditto.
Instead of the long series of "(func): Ditto." kind of entries, it's
better to make a single multi-line entry, like this:
(remove_breakpoint, breakpoint_here_p, breakpoint_thread_match)
(bpstat_should_step, bpstat_have_active_hw_watchpoints)
(disable_breakpoints_in_shlibs, hw_watchpoint_used_count)
(disable_watchpoints_before_interactive_call_start)
(breakpoint_re_set_one): Ditto.
(Note how every line ends with a right paren: it's important for
Emacs to highlight the function names correctly.)
Also, please make sure each line of the ChangeLog entry begins with a
literal TAB character.
The second comment is about this hunk of changes:
@@ -2574,9 +2581,7 @@ bpstat_stop_status (CORE_ADDR *pc, int n
ALL_BREAKPOINTS_SAFE (b, temp)
{
- if (b->enable_state == bp_disabled
- || b->enable_state == bp_shlib_disabled
- || b->enable_state == bp_call_disabled)
+ if (!breakpoint_enabled (b) && b->enable_state != bp_permanent)
continue;
Bother. Is it really wise to replace an explicit check of equality to
several bp_* constants with "!= bp_permanent"? Are we sure that any
non-bp_permanent breakpoint should pass this test, even if in the
future additional bp_* constants will be introduced that aren't there
now?