On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 16:27:31 +0200, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 09, 2008 at 08:14:14AM +0200, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> > @@ -5903,7 +5903,27 @@ watch_command_1 (char *arg, int accessfl
> >    exp_end = arg;
> >    exp_valid_block = innermost_block;
> >    mark = value_mark ();
> > -  fetch_watchpoint_value (exp, &val, NULL, NULL);
> > +  fetch_watchpoint_value (exp, &val, &val_result, NULL);
> > +
> > +  /* VAL may be unset for unreachable final values.  */
> > +  while (val_result != NULL)
> > +    {
> > +      if (VALUE_LVAL (val_result) == lval_memory
> > +	  || VALUE_LVAL (val_result) == lval_register)
> > +	break;
> > +      val_result = value_next (val_result);
> > +    }
> 
> val_result is the same as val, except possibly lazy.  value_next
> (val_result) will always be NULL, won't it?  The chain goes the other
> way - next from the oldest value (*val_chain argument, or the first
> value after the saved mark).

Thanks, a "typo" (it should have been the 3rd argument - VAL_CHAIN).
It had a regression on `watch **valpp' due to it.
This bug affected your other valid objections.


Thanks,
Jan