This is the mail archive of the gdb@sourceware.org mailing list for the GDB project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Watchpoints with condition


On Tue, 2007-12-04 at 09:23 -0800, Jim Blandy wrote:
> Michael Snyder <msnyder at specifix.com> writes:
> > On Tue, 2007-12-04 at 06:23 +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> >> > Cc: gdb@sourceware.org
> >> > From: Jim Blandy <jimb@codesourcery.com>
> >> > Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2007 15:07:19 -0800
> >> > 
> >> > In the use case you mention, why wouldn't 'watch v == X'; 'watch v ==
> >> > Y'; etc. have worked for you?  You would have gotten more hits than
> >> > you'd like, but only twice as many --- is that right?
> >> 
> >> It would have shown me hits I don't want to see, yes.  And it is more
> >> natural to write "watch X if X == 1" than what you suggest.
> >
> > I have to agree -- typing "watch X == 1" is intuitive to you and me
> > (because we're gdb hackers), but it would not be intuitive to most
> > users.  Besides, as Eli says, it gives you unwanted hits.  Why would
> > we want to explain all of that (including the unwanted hits) to a
> > naive user?
> 
> I guess I don't see why 'GDB stops your program whenever the value of
> this expression changes' is hard to understand.  Explaining
> conditional watchpoints is a superset of explaining watchpoints, so I
> don't see how it could be simpler.

Well, since eliminating conditional watchpoints is not on the table, 
I guess it's a moot point, eh?




Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]