This is the mail archive of the
gdb@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
A little patch for two comments in infrun.c
- From: Wu Zhou <woodzltc at cn dot ibm dot com>
- To: gdb at sourceware dot org
- Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 16:24:11 +0800 (CST)
- Subject: A little patch for two comments in infrun.c
Hi,
I am reading the source of infrun.c, and having a couple questions about
two comments in the code:
First, in resume (int step, enum target_signal sig), one comment says:
/* FIXME: calling breakpoint_here_p (read_pc ()) three times! */
Does this still make sense? In function resume, there does exist three
call for breakpoint_here_p (read_pc ()). But read_pc () might return
various values at various points. The breakpoint chain maintained in
this function might also change as the execution proceeds. So I am
thinking this comment doesn't make sense here. Am I right? Any error,
feel free to correct me.
I also think the comment in the following code (in handle_inferior_event)
should be changed.
/* If it's a new process, add it to the thread database */
ecs->new_thread_event = (!ptid_equal (ecs->ptid, inferior_ptid)
&& !ptid_equal (ecs->ptid, minus_one_ptid)
&& !in_thread_list (ecs->ptid));
IMHO, "new thread" describes more properly about the code.
I have a patch for the above two comments.
--- 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)
OK to commit?
Regards
- Wu Zhou