This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
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: 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?
> 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?