From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7502 invoked by alias); 30 Dec 2009 19:22:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 7494 invoked by uid 22791); 30 Dec 2009 19:22:02 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 30 Dec 2009 19:21:55 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2BA92BABC3; Wed, 30 Dec 2009 14:21:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 0Wei8Sv9aL1j; Wed, 30 Dec 2009 14:21:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD8332BABB1; Wed, 30 Dec 2009 14:21:52 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 9A633F5937; Wed, 30 Dec 2009 20:21:23 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2009 19:22:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Thiago Jung Bauermann Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Luis Machado Subject: Re: [RFA] Fix verification of changed values for big values. Message-ID: <20091230192123.GH2788@adacore.com> References: <200912232142.37008.bauerman@br.ibm.com> <20091224044125.GW2788@adacore.com> <200912301538.04119.bauerman@br.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200912301538.04119.bauerman@br.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2009-12/txt/msg00444.txt.bz2 > The purpose of the function is rather simple, so I didn't have much to say. > I added this description: > > /* Evaluate watchpoint condition expression and check if its value changed. */ Thanks. I thought it was important to explain what the real type of parameter P was so I added an extra sentence to the documentation. Patch attached. > You're right. IIRC I used gdb_expect because I wanted to explicitly check > for the gdb prompt in my regex, to avoid it being too greedy. Just for the fun of discussion (I am French, after all :-), I am pretty sure that you can also do that with gdb_test_multiple... -- Joel