[Lldb-commits] Fix a bug with order of operations

[Zachary Turner]

Hi Greg,

Looks like a simple bug where it should have been "a | b | (c ? 0 : d)"
instead of "a | b | c ? 0 : d".  Rather than rely on order of operations,
which I always find confusing, I opted to just move this out into explicit
initialization of the flags.

Let me know if the new code matches your original intent.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/lldb-commits/attachments/20140716/55e4145a/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
diff --git a/source/Interpreter/ScriptInterpreterPython.cpp b/source/Interpreter/ScriptInterpreterPython.cpp
index ac4b29f..c41c264 100644
--- a/source/Interpreter/ScriptInterpreterPython.cpp
+++ b/source/Interpreter/ScriptInterpreterPython.cpp
@@ -2445,8 +2445,11 @@ ScriptInterpreterPython::RunScriptBasedCommand(const char* impl_function,
     std::string err_msg;
     
     {
+        uint16_t entry_flags = Locker::AcquireLock | Locker::InitSession;
+        if (cmd_retobj.GetInteractive())
+            entry_flags |= Locker::NoSTDIN;
         Locker py_lock(this,
-                       Locker::AcquireLock | Locker::InitSession | cmd_retobj.GetInteractive() ? 0 : Locker::NoSTDIN,
+                       entry_flags,
                        Locker::FreeLock    | Locker::TearDownSession);
         
         SynchronicityHandler synch_handler(debugger_sp,