Re: [PATCH] server: if a debugger is attached to a process, child processes shouldn't get debugged (resend)

[Dmitry Timoshkov]

Bernhard Loos <bernhardloos(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
> +    int                  debug_childs:1;  /* also debug all child processes */

'debug_children' would be a better name.

-- 
Dmitry.

[PATCH] server: if a debugger is attached to a process, child processes shouldn't get debugged (resend)

[Marcus Meissner]

On Fri, Oct 07, 2011 at 11:44:24AM +0900, Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
> Bernhard Loos <bernhardloos(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
> > +    int                  debug_childs:1;  /* also debug all child processes */
>
> 'debug_children' would be a better name.

also
	unsigned int	foo:1;
please. (int foo:1 works, but is semidefined only ;)

Ciao, Marcus

[PATCH] server: if a debugger is attached to a process, child processes shouldn't get debugged (resend)

[David Laight]

On Fri, Oct 07, 2011 at 08:32:27PM +0200, Marcus Meissner wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 07, 2011 at 11:44:24AM +0900, Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
> > Bernhard Loos <bernhardloos(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > +    int                  debug_childs:1;  /* also debug all child processes */
> >
> > 'debug_children' would be a better name.
>
> also
>   unsigned int	foo:1;
> please. (int foo:1 works, but is semidefined only ;)

Why the bitfield anyway?
Unless you are allocating a lot of copies of the structure
it is likely to generate more code than the saved memory.

	David

-- 
David Laight: david(a)l8s.co.uk

[PATCH] server: if a debugger is attached to a process, child processes shouldn't get debugged (resend)

[Bernhard Loos]

On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 10:05 AM, David Laight <david(a)l8s.co.uk> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 07, 2011 at 08:32:27PM +0200, Marcus Meissner wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 07, 2011 at 11:44:24AM +0900, Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
> > > Bernhard Loos <bernhardloos(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > > +    int                  debug_childs:1;  /* also debug all child processes */
> > >
> > > 'debug_children' would be a better name.
> >
> > also
> >       unsigned int    foo:1;
> > please. (int foo:1 works, but is semidefined only ;)
>
> Why the bitfield anyway?
> Unless you are allocating a lot of copies of the structure
> it is likely to generate more code than the saved memory.

Actually, the generated code is pretty much exactly the same size or
even smaller for one function. Also, it makes it clear that this is a
boolean flag.
>        David
>
> --
> David Laight: david(a)l8s.co.uk