From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4972 invoked by alias); 29 Dec 2008 13:54:14 -0000 Received: (qmail 4964 invoked by uid 22791); 29 Dec 2008 13:54:13 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 29 Dec 2008 13:53:34 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C6C610A05; Mon, 29 Dec 2008 13:53:32 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (209.195.188.212.nauticom.net [209.195.188.212]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61E7A10594; Mon, 29 Dec 2008 13:53:32 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1LHIYm-0002tm-11; Mon, 29 Dec 2008 08:53:32 -0500 Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 13:54:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Joel Brobecker Cc: Emi SUZUKI , gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Watchpoint on an unloaded shared library(2) Message-ID: <20081229135332.GA10806@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Joel Brobecker , Emi SUZUKI , gdb@sourceware.org References: <20081217.154039.01371590.emi-suzuki@tjsys.co.jp> <20081229051317.GB16483@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20081229051317.GB16483@adacore.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2008-05-11) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2008-12/txt/msg00091.txt.bz2 On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 09:13:17AM +0400, Joel Brobecker wrote: > > a) Print b->exp_string and b->cond_string. > > We might make some effort to display it like as its expression is > > valid for annotations... I have no idea whether it is worthwhile > > to try. > > I think that this is the best we can do (print exp_string). > I personally wouldn't worry about trying to massage the string > into something that would look like we're printing an expression. > I'm not even sure why we use "print_expression (b->exp) rather > than printing exp_string directly - perhaps someone does? I don't know, but it drives me nuts. This causes: (gdb) break *0x10000000 Breakpoint 1 at 0x10000000 (gdb) watch *0x10000000 Watchpoint 2: *268435456 (gdb) info break Num Type Disp Enb Address What 1 breakpoint keep y 0x10000000 2 watchpoint keep y *268435456 I'm sure there are some cases which are more ambiguous if you print the string, but I'd risk some ambiguity to get rid of that :-) -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery