This is the mail archive of the
gdb@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: A little patch for two comments in infrun.c
- From: Jim Blandy <jimb at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Wu Zhou <woodzltc at cn dot ibm dot com>
- Cc: gdb at sourceware dot org
- Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 10:55:40 -0700
- Subject: Re: A little patch for two comments in infrun.c
- References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0605301602590.2773@localhost.localdomain>
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.