From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20792 invoked by alias); 4 Mar 2010 14:11:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 20775 invoked by uid 22791); 4 Mar 2010 14:11:33 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from fencepost.gnu.org (HELO fencepost.gnu.org) (140.186.70.10) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 04 Mar 2010 14:11:29 +0000 Received: from eliz by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NnBlv-0003Ak-W8; Thu, 04 Mar 2010 09:11:28 -0500 From: Eli Zaretskii To: Pedro Alves CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-reply-to: <201003041316.29257.pedro@codesourcery.com> (message from Pedro Alves on Thu, 4 Mar 2010 13:16:29 +0000) Subject: Re: Watching expressions that don't involve memory (e.g., watch $regfoo) Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <201003040156.44957.pedro@codesourcery.com> <83k4ts3eu4.fsf@gnu.org> <201003041316.29257.pedro@codesourcery.com> Message-Id: Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2010 14:11:00 -0000 X-IsSubscribed: yes 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: 2010-03/txt/msg00177.txt.bz2 > From: Pedro Alves > Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 13:16:29 +0000 > > On Thursday 04 March 2010 04:12:19, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > > From: Pedro Alves > > > Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 01:56:44 +0000 > > > > > > Anyone else things this is useful? > > > > I do. (Somehow, I thought it actually did work at some point in the > > past, but maybe I was dreaming.) > > Indeed, I tried it on 5.3 and 6.0 gdbs, and it worked. Looking > at the code, I guess it broke with the support for > multi-location breakpoints, in 6.8. I guess I shall drop the > NEWS entry, as it's a regression fix afterall? There's nothing wrong with saying "works again", if it was broken for a long time. But if it became broken in 6.8, maybe it's not enough time. > I think I'll add a simple test that watches for "watch $pc", > so that we don't regress again. Yes, thanks.