From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1835 invoked by alias); 18 Nov 2010 17:18:43 -0000 Received: (qmail 1825 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Nov 2010 17:18:42 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 17:18:37 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B2872BAC9B; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 12:18:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id ppudonrPXj4H; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 12:18:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA9BB2BAC74; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 12:18:35 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 41F81145B6C; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 09:18:34 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 17:18:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Thiago Jung Bauermann Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [patch 1/2] Convert hardware watchpoints to use breakpoint_ops Message-ID: <20101118171834.GD2634@adacore.com> References: <1282074071.2606.702.camel@hactar> <201010161843.43062.pedro@codesourcery.com> <1287534691.2686.17.camel@hactar> <20101115222310.GB4434@adacore.com> <1289933508.3202.13.camel@hactar> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1289933508.3202.13.camel@hactar> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2010-11/txt/msg00238.txt.bz2 > I kept the wording as similar as possible to the original. Your > suggestion is then to have the code below instead? > > + if (val == 1) > + warning (_("\ > +Error inserting catchpoint %d: Your system does not support this type of catchpoint."), > + bpt->owner->number); > + else > + warning (_("Error inserting catchpoint %d."), bpt->owner->number); Yep! > What about these additional comments (I'll send the updated patch after > understanding your suggestion above)? They look good to me. IMO, you can even drop the first hunk, documenting the return value inside the target_ops vector definition. I'd rather have no documentation than an incomplete duplicate of the actual documentation located elsewhere. The idea is that, if there is no documentation, then it might help trigger a search of that documentation elsewhere. If there is some, then we might not have the idea to look elsewhere for the rest... -- Joel