From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9001 invoked by alias); 20 May 2010 23:35:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 8982 invoked by uid 22791); 20 May 2010 23:35:03 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.1 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; Thu, 20 May 2010 23:34:53 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27AAD2BB944; Thu, 20 May 2010 19:34:52 -0400 (EDT) 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 wBi73dbna9eY; Thu, 20 May 2010 19:34:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA22B2BB943; Thu, 20 May 2010 19:34:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id B2E8AF58FA; Thu, 20 May 2010 16:34:49 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 23:55:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Sergio Durigan Junior Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Jan Kratochvil Subject: Re: [PATCH] Forbid watchpoint on a constant value Message-ID: <20100520233449.GO3019@adacore.com> References: <201005181418.24324.sergiodj@redhat.com> <20100520231308.GM3019@adacore.com> <201005202022.30149.sergiodj@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201005202022.30149.sergiodj@redhat.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: 2010-05/txt/msg00469.txt.bz2 > Thanks for your review. I don't really have a strong opinion about it, > but your suggestion sounds pretty reasonable to me. Since Jan is the > co-author of this patch, I'll wait to see what he thinks about it. I don't have a strong opinion on it either, which is why I am interested in other people's thoughts on it. What was your own motivation behind this? I guess some user inserted a watchpoint on something constant, and then waited for ages for the watchpoint to trigger, thinking that the slowness was due to the watchpoint, not his, er... silliness :-P? -- Joel