This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH RFA] breakpoint.c: More check_duplicates() changes.
- To: kevinb at cygnus dot com
- Subject: Re: [PATCH RFA] breakpoint.c: More check_duplicates() changes.
- From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz at is dot elta dot co dot il>
- Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 13:15:12 +0300
- CC: msnyder at cygnus dot com, jimb at cygnus dot com, gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- References: <1010512080125.ZM29521@ocotillo.lan>
- Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at is dot elta dot co dot il>
> Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 01:01:25 -0700
> From: Kevin Buettner <kevinb@cygnus.com>
>
> +/* Return true for all breakpoint types which are permitted to have
> + addresses which may be a duplicate of some other breakpoint. E.g,
> + watchpoints will always have zero valued addresses and we don't
> + want check_duplicates() to mark a watchpoint as a duplicate of an
> + actual breakpoint at address zero. */
> +
> +static int
> +duplicate_okay (struct breakpoint *bpt)
> +{
> + enum bptype type = bpt->type;
> +
> + return type == bp_watchpoint
> + || type == bp_hardware_watchpoint
> + || type == bp_read_watchpoint
> + || type == bp_access_watchpoint
> + || type == bp_catch_exec
> + || type == bp_longjmp_resume
> + || type == bp_catch_fork
> + || type == bp_catch_vfork;
> +}
> +
Is it perhaps possible to explain, for each of these types, why it is
okay to duplicate it? The comment only gives one example.