This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: Watchpoints with condition
>>>>> "Jim" == Jim Blandy <email@example.com> writes:
Jim> Michael Snyder <msnyder at specifix.com> writes:
>> On Tue, 2007-12-04 at 06:23 +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>>> > Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org > From: Jim Blandy
>>> <email@example.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?
Jim> I guess I don't see why 'GDB stops your program whenever the
Jim> value of this expression changes' is hard to understand.
Jim> Explaining conditional watchpoints is a superset of explaining
Jim> watchpoints, so I don't see how it could be simpler.
The problem is that "watch xxx" stops whenever xxx is true" is an
obvious -- but wrong -- intuition of what the command does.