From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25456 invoked by alias); 21 Aug 2007 16:33:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 25201 invoked by uid 22791); 21 Aug 2007 16:33:37 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (65.74.133.4) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 21 Aug 2007 16:33:31 +0000 Received: (qmail 1200 invoked from network); 21 Aug 2007 16:33:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost) (jimb@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 21 Aug 2007 16:33:29 -0000 To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [rfc] Allow watchpoints on inaccessible memory References: <20070821142500.GA28295@caradoc.them.org> From: Jim Blandy Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 16:33:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20070821142500.GA28295@caradoc.them.org> (Daniel Jacobowitz's message of "Tue, 21 Aug 2007 10:25:00 -0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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: 2007-08/txt/msg00418.txt.bz2 Daniel Jacobowitz writes: > This is much nicer :-) Any opinions on this change? Also, does it > deserve a NEWS entry and should it go in 6.7? This is definitely very cool. Certainly watchpoints shouldn't refuse to be set because their expression (currently) yields an error. One thing I don't understand: why are the "always watch the outermost value even if it is lazy" changes needed? The code that evaluates the watchpoint condition should always simply unlazy the expression's final value to begin with, so it'll never be lazy by the time the other code sees it.