From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29452 invoked by alias); 29 Dec 2008 23:45:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 29436 invoked by uid 22791); 29 Dec 2008 23:45:49 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (65.74.133.4) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 29 Dec 2008 23:44:52 +0000 Received: (qmail 9246 invoked from network); 29 Dec 2008 23:44:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO orlando.local) (pedro@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 29 Dec 2008 23:44:51 -0000 From: Pedro Alves To: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Watchpoint on an unloaded shared library(2) Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 23:45:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.10 Cc: Daniel Jacobowitz , Joel Brobecker , Emi SUZUKI References: <20081217.154039.01371590.emi-suzuki@tjsys.co.jp> <20081229051317.GB16483@adacore.com> <20081229135332.GA10806@caradoc.them.org> In-Reply-To: <20081229135332.GA10806@caradoc.them.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200812292344.51830.pedro@codesourcery.com> 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/msg00092.txt.bz2 On Monday 29 December 2008 13:53:32, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > 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 :-) > This looks like PR 8079: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8079 -- Pedro Alves